Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

被引:38
作者
Martin, Richard W. [1 ]
Andersen, Stina Brogard [2 ,3 ,4 ]
O'Brien, Mary Ann [5 ]
Bravo, Paulina [6 ,7 ]
Hoffmann, Tammy [8 ]
Olling, Karina [3 ]
Shepherd, Heather L. [9 ]
Dankl, Kathrina [10 ]
Stacey, Dawn [11 ,12 ]
Steffensen, Karina Dahl [3 ,4 ,13 ]
机构
[1] Michigan State Univ, Coll Human Med, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 USA
[2] Odense Univ Hosp, Dept Clin Dev, Odense, Denmark
[3] Univ Hosp Southern Denmark, Ctr Shared Decis Making, Lillebaelt Hosp, Vejle, Denmark
[4] Univ Southern Denmark, Fac Hlth Sci, Dept Reg Hlth Res, Odense, Denmark
[5] Univ Toronto, Dept Family & Community Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[6] Pontificia Univ Catolica Chile, Sch Nursing, Santiago, Chile
[7] Millennium Nucleus Ctr Author & Power Asymmetries, Santiago De Surco, Chile
[8] Bond Univ, Fac Hlth Sci & Med, Inst Evidence Based Healthcare, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia
[9] Univ Sydney, Fac Sci, Sch Psychol, Psychooncol Cooperat Res Grp PoCoG, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[10] Design Sch Kolding, Lab Social Design, Kolding, Denmark
[11] Univ Ottawa, Sch Nursing, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[12] Ottawa Hosp Res Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[13] Univ Hosp Southern Denmark, Dept Clin Oncol, Lillebaelt Hosp, Vejle, Denmark
关键词
patient decision aids; risk communication; balance; framing; bias; choice bracketing; shared decision making; user-centered design; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; NUTRITION SUPPORT; PROSTATE-CANCER; INFORMED CHOICE; WOMEN; QUALITY; ONLINE; PARTICIPATION; ACCEPTABILITY; ATTITUDES;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X211021397
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background The objective of this International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS) review is to update and synthesize theoretical and empirical evidence on how balanced information can be presented and measured in patient decision aids (PtDAs). Methods A multidisciplinary team conducted a scoping review using 2 search strategies in multiple electronic databases evaluating the ways investigators defined and measured the balance of information provided about options in PtDAs. The first strategy combined a search informed by the Cochrane Review of the Effectiveness of Decision Aids with a search on balanced information. The second strategy repeated the search published in the 2013 IPDAS update on balanced presentation. Results Of 2450 unique citations reviewed, the full text of 168 articles was screened for eligibility. Sixty-four articles were included in the review, of which 13 provided definitions of balanced presentation, 8 evaluated mechanisms that may introduce bias, and 42 quantitatively measured balanced with methods consistent with the IPDAS criteria in PtDAs. The revised definition of balanced information is, "Objective, complete, salient, transparent, evidence-informed, and unbiased presentation of text and visual information about the condition and all relevant options (with important elements including the features, benefits, harms and procedures of those options) in a way that does not favor one option over another and enables individuals to focus attention on important elements and process this information." Conclusions Developers can increase the balance of information in PtDAs by informing their structure and design elements using the IPDAS checklist. We suggest that new PtDA components pertaining to balance be evaluated for cognitive bias with experimental methods as well by objectively evaluating patients' and content experts' beliefs from multiple perspectives.
引用
收藏
页码:780 / 800
页数:21
相关论文
共 102 条
[1]   Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity: Does the Frame Influence Decisions? [J].
Abhyankar, Purva ;
Summers, Barbara A. ;
Velikova, Galina ;
Bekker, Hilary L. .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2014, 34 (05) :567-582
[2]   Balancing the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids: an updated review [J].
Abhyankar, Purva ;
Volk, Robert J. ;
Blumenthal-Barby, Jennifer ;
Bravo, Paulina ;
Buchholz, Angela ;
Ozanne, Elissa ;
Vidal, Dale Colins ;
Col, Nananda ;
Stalmeier, Peep .
BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2013, 13
[3]   'Balance' is in the eye of the beholder: providing information to support informed choices in antenatal screening via Antenatal Screening Web Resource [J].
Ahmed, Shenaz ;
Bryant, Louise ;
Hewison, Jenny .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2007, 10 (04) :309-320
[4]   "The Booklet Helped Me Not to Panic" A Pilot of a Decision Aid for Asymptomatic Women With Ovarian Cancer and With Rising CA-125 Levels [J].
Anderson, Caroline ;
Carter, Jonathan ;
Nattress, Kathryn ;
Beale, Philip ;
Philp, Shannon ;
Harrison, James ;
Juraskova, Ilona .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2011, 21 (04) :737-743
[5]  
[Anonymous], IPDAS 2005 CRITERIA
[6]   Exploiting order effects to improve the quality of decisions [J].
Bansback, Nick ;
Li, Linda C. ;
Lynd, Larry ;
Bryan, Stirling .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2014, 96 (02) :197-203
[7]   PATIENT REACTIONS TO A PROGRAM DESIGNED TO FACILITATE PATIENT PARTICIPATION IN TREATMENT DECISIONS FOR BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA [J].
BARRY, MJ ;
FOWLER, FJ ;
MULLEY, AG ;
HENDERSON, JV ;
WENNBERG, JE .
MEDICAL CARE, 1995, 33 (08) :771-782
[8]   INFORMed choices: Facilitating shared decision-making in health care [J].
Beckmann, Michael ;
Cooper, Catherine ;
Pocock, Daniel .
AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2015, 55 (03) :294-297
[9]   The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: Do checklists damage the quality of informed choice interventions? [J].
Bekker, Hilary L. .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2010, 78 (03) :357-364
[10]  
Bermudez J.L., 2020, Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Science of the Mind