Unusual metastases from malignant pleural mesothelioma.

L. Tho,N. O'Rourke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLON.2004.07.017

2005-06-01

Clinics in Oncology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Dawn Stacey,Krystina B Lewis,Maureen Smith,Meg Carley,Robert Volk,Elisa E Douglas,Lissa Pacheco-Brousseau,Jeanette Finderup,Janet Gunderson,Michael J Barry,Carol L Bennett,Paulina Bravo,Karina Steffensen,Amédé Gogovor,Ian D Graham,Shannon E Kelly,France Légaré,Henning Sondergaard,Richard Thomson,Logan Trenaman,Lyndal Trevena

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub6

IF: 8.4

2024-01-31

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence‐based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values‐based choice congruence) and the decision‐making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision‐making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision‐making, adherence to the chosen option, preference‐linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random‐effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate‐certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision‐making process and compared to usual care, there was high‐certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD ‐10.02, 95% CI ‐12.31 to ‐7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD ‐7.86, 95% CI ‐9.69 to ‐6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision‐making (clinician‐controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high‐certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD ‐1.23, 95% CI ‐3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD ‐2.97 minutes, 95% CI ‐7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values‐congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision‐makin -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Decision aids for promoting shared decision‐making: A review of systematic reviews

Myonghwa Park,Thao Thi‐Thu Doan,Jihye Jung,Thi‐Thanh‐Tinh Giap,Jinju Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.13071

2024-01-13

Nursing and Health Sciences

Abstract:In the context of shared decision‐making (SDM), experts have advocated the use of validated decision aids (DAs) as valuable tools for facilitating SDM in various healthcare scenarios. This comprehensive review attempts to analyze a vast corpus of DA research by performing thorough searches across four prominent databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science). Independent reviewers selected relevant reviews, extracted data, and assessed review quality using the AMSTAR II tool. A total of 34 systematic reviews were identified and evaluated in this review, encompassing a wide range of outcomes associated with using DAs. These outcomes include patient knowledge, patient involvement in SDM, decision conflict, decision regret, satisfaction, and adherence. In addition, DAs positively affect healthcare provider outcomes by increasing satisfaction, reducing decision conflicts, and lengthening clinical consultations. This review highlights the need for additional research in specific contexts such as long‐term care, mental health, and reproductive health to better understand the benefits and challenges of implementing DAs in these settings. Such research can contribute to the improvement of SDM practices and patient‐centered care.

nursing
Quality of Patient Decision Aids to Support the Public Making COVID-19 Decisions: An Online Environmental Scan

Alda Kiss,Qian Zhang,Meg Carley,Maureen Smith,France Légaré,Patrick Archambault,Dawn Stacey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2023.107797

IF: 3.467

2023-05-21

Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract:Objective To identify and appraise the quality of COVID-19 patient decision aids (PtDAs). Methods We conducted an environmental scan of online publicly available COVID-19 PtDAs. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. We calculated median International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) scores and proportion scoring > 70% on Patient Education Materials Information Tool (PEMAT) adequate for understandability and actionability. Results Of 876 resources identified, 12 were PtDAs. Decisions focused on initial COVID-19 vaccination series (n= 9), location of care for elderly (n=2), and social distancing (n=1). All 12 PtDAs were written materials and two had accompanying videos. The median IPDAS score minimizing risk of biased decisions was 4 of 6 items (IQR 1, range 2-4). For PEMAT, 92% had adequate for understandability and none for actionability. Conclusions We identified few online publicly available COVID-19 PtDAs and none were about COVID-19 vaccination boosters or treatment. PtDAs scored poorly on actionability and none met all IPDAS criteria for minimizing risk of biased decisions. Practice Implications PtDA developers for COVID-19 and future pandemics should ensure their PtDAs meet all IPDAS criteria for minimizing risk of bias, have adequate scores for actionability, and are disseminated in the A to Z inventory.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, interdisciplinary
Can health information and decision aids decrease inequity in health care? A systematic review on the equality of their effectiveness

Christin Ellermann,Jana Hinneburg,Christoph Wilhelm,Felix Rebitschek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.24.24314314

2024-09-25

Abstract:Objectives Systematic review of studies evaluating evidence-based health information (EBHI) and decision aids (DAs) in terms of the extent to which inequity-producing factors have been considered and how these factors affect access to health-related information and informed decision-making. Study design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Methods Systematic searches were performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC and PSYNDEX from inception to May 2023 to identify evaluation studies of EBHI and DAs that take into account factors associated with unequal opportunities as defined by PROGRESS Plus. Information on the effect of these factors was extracted and analysed in terms of outcomes relevant to the decision-making process. Results Few studies have examined the impact of EBHI/DAs on outcomes relevant to decision-making with respect to inequity-producing factors. In our final synthesis,12 studies were included. A positive association between the effectiveness of the intervention and the disadvantage status could be found twice and a negative association in three studies. Overall, most of the studies found no difference in knowledge gain, decision conflict and shared decision-making (SDM) between those advantaged and disadvantaged in terms of ethnicity, gender, education, age, income, health literacy, numeracy or socioeconomic status (SES). However, few trials examined this effect and the effect was considered solely in subgroup analyses that were probably underpowered, so asymmetries between these groups may not have been detected in the existing designs. Conclusion EBHI and DAs have been shown to be effective in promoting decision-making and thus in improving health care. To improve health care equitably, greater attention needs to be paid to methodological requirements in evaluations to fully capture potential differences in access to health-related information between individuals or in populations within the target groups of EBHI/DAs. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018103456 Key words: Equity, decision aids, decision-making, informed choice, evidence-based

Public and Global Health
Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review

Peter Scalia,Paul J Barr,Ciaran O'Neill,Grainne E Crealey,Pamela J Bagley,Heather B Blunt,Glyn Elwyn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036834

IF: 3.006

2020-11-16

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives: To update a previous systematic review to determine if patient decision aid (PDA) interventions generate savings in healthcare settings, and if so, from which perspective (ie, patient, organisation providing care, society). Design: Systematic review. Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Campbell Collaboration Library, EconLit, Business Source Complete, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) from 15 March 2013 to 25 January 2019. The references of studies that met the eligibility criteria and any publications related to conference abstracts or registered clinical trials were reviewed to increase the sensitivity of the search. Eligibility criteria: Full and partial economic evaluations with an experimental, quasi-experimental or randomised controlled design were included. The intervention had to satisfy the pre-determined minimum conditions necessary to be defined as a PDA, and (for full evaluations) provide details on the comparator used. Data extraction and synthesis: All study outcomes and economic data were extracted. The reporting and quality of the economic analyses were independently assessed by two health economists. Results: Of 5066 studies, 22 studies were included, including the 8 studies from the previous review. Twelve studies reported cost-savings (range=US$10 to US$81 156; US dollars in 2020), primarily from the organisational or health system perspective, and 10 studies did not. However, due to the quality of the economic analyses, and the related issues with the interpretative validity of results it would be inappropriate to say that PDAs will generate savings, from any perspective. Conclusions: It is unclear whether PDAs will generate savings. Greater consensus on what constitutes a PDA and the need to compare them against usual care over a sufficient time horizon to allow valid assessment of costs and outcomes is required. Prospero registration number: CRD42019118457.
Beyond pros and cons - developing a patient decision aid to cultivate dialog to build relationships: insights from a qualitative study and decision aid development

Catherine H Yu,Calvin Ke,Aleksandra Jovicic,Susan Hall,Sharon E Straus,IP-SDM Team;,Paul Cantarutti,Karen Chu,Paul Frydrych,Noah Ivers,David Kaplan,Fok-Han Leung,John Maxted,Jeremy Rezmovitz,Sumeet Sodhi,Deanna Telner,Joanna Sale,Li Ka Shing,Dawn Stacey,Sharon Straus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-0898-5

2019-09-18

Abstract:Background: An individualized approach using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting is a person-centred strategy that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. SDM has not been adopted extensively in clinical practice. An interprofessional approach to SDM with tools to facilitate patient participation may overcome barriers to SDM use. The aim was to explore decision-making experiences of health professionals and people with diabetes (PwD), then develop an intervention to facilitate interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM) and goal-setting. Methods: This was a multi-phased study. 1) Feasibility: Using a descriptive qualitative study, individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and PwD were conducted. The interviews explored their experiences with SDM and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, relevance of a decision aid for priority-setting, and integration of SDM and a decision aid into practice. 2) Development: An evidence-based SDM toolkit was developed, consisting of an online decision aid, MyDiabetesPlan, and implementation tools. MyDiabetesPlan was reviewed by content experts for accuracy and comprehensiveness. Usability assessment was done with 3) heuristic evaluation and 4) user testing, followed by 5) refinement. Results: Seven PwD and 10 clinicians participated in the interviews. From interviews with PwD, we identified that: (1) approaches to decision-making were diverse and dynamic; (2) a trusting relationship with the clinician and dialog were critical precursors to SDM; and, (3) goal-setting was a dynamic process. From clinicians, we found: (1) complementary (holistic and disease specific) approaches to the complex patient were used; (2) patient-provider agendas for goal-setting were often conflicting; (3) a flexible approach to decision-making was needed; and, (4) conflict could be resolved through SDM. Following usability assessment, we redesigned MyDiabetesPlan to consist of data collection and recommendation stages. Findings were used to finalize a multi-component toolkit and implementation strategy, consisting of MyDiabetesPlan, instructional card and videos, and orientation meetings with participating patients and clinicians. Conclusions: A decision aid can provide information, facilitate clinician-patient dialog and strengthen the therapeutic relationship. Implementation of the decision aid can fit into a model of team care that respects and exemplifies professional identity, and can facilitate intra-team communication. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: 11 February 2015.
Decision aids: challenges for practice when we have confidence in effectiveness

Rebecca E Ryan,Sophie Hill

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ed000164

IF: 8.4

2024-01-31

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:In Cochrane's 30th year, it is fitting that the seminal review, 'Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions' has been updated again, to include analysis of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants.[1] This 2024 update almost doubles the size of the review, last published in 2017.[2] It provides clear evidence of benefits for the use of decision aids over usual care across a huge array of health options, ranging from choices about cancer screening to decisions about major elective surgery. The review continues to provide the foundation for extensive research and ongoing changes in practice and health service improvement. Decision aids are one type of tool that can be used to support the process of shared decision making between patients and their health professionals, a key element of person‐centred care and health system improvements.[3] In this update, the largest and most consistent improvements seen with the use of decision aids include people having better knowledge, more accurate risk perceptions, feeling more informed, and having a clearer match between their values and the option they have chosen. There are also benefits to be seen across other outcomes, such as more people being actively engaged in decision making with their doctors and being more satisfied with the process of making decisions, without indications of increased distress or regret related to the health decisions made. All of these findings are convincingly positive and indicate – as previous versions of the review have suggested – that decision aids are effective strategies for improving shared decision making between people and their health professionals. This review, in all its cumulative forms, has had a significant impact on practice around the world. For instance, it has been referred to in more than 90 clinical practice guidelines. Its influence on research is evident by its being one of the most cited reviews published on the Cochrane Library for over a decade. This update sees an increase in both the quality of evidence and the precision of estimates of the effects of decision aids for many key outcomes. This means that we, as users of evidence, are in a stronger position than ever to make informed decisions about using decision aids, with clear benefits for patient care associated with their adoption in decision making in practice. The author team has regularly updated this review over time and has done so in a thoughtful way, informed by their extensive knowledge of shared decision making and their engagement with the evolving practice of evidence synthesis. This has meant that updating the review has not simply been a linear accumulation of trials. Instead, each update has been considered within, and adjusted to the wider context of the evolving understanding of shared decision making at that point in time, ensuring that the most important practice implications have been a focus of the evidence synthesis. For example, the 2009 version[4] saw substantial changes to the outcomes sought by the review, to align with the original effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) collaboration.[5] Comparisons have also been adapted over time to reflect what was most meaningful for practice. For instance, investigating the effects of detailed versus simple decision aids in earlier versions (now redundant), or exploring the differences between pre‐ and in‐consult decision aids. The operational definition of decision aids has been monitored and the review adjusted as this has evolved.[5, 6] Some uncertainties still remain for several outcomes, such as adherence to the chosen option, and some gaps persist in the evidence, for example, we do not have enough evidence from low‐ and middle‐income countries. How should we respond to such a review and its findings? Despite the recommended use of decision aids in so many guidelines, as well as policies and legislation to ensure that decision aids are enacted in several countries, there is still a long delay in their adoption in many health systems.[3, 7] Many people are not aware of decision aids, nor are they straightforward for people to use on their own. Instead, they require larger systems, support and training to be in place to enable health professionals to use them together with their patients.[3, 8] This situation therefore mimics the wider challenges in putting person‐centred health care into practice. Despite movement worldwide towards recognition of the central role of people in health care and decisions about their health and treatment, the challenges of implementing interventions like decision aids, within a broader purpose of supporting shared decision making, therefore remain substantial and likely require redesign at clinical, organisational and health‐system levels to support patient‐doctor partnerships.[3, 7, 9] Considering changes in context will continu -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Effectiveness of computerised decision aids for patients with chronic diseases in shared decision‐making: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Chih‐Jung Wu,Tzu‐Pei Yeh,Ginger Chu,Ya‐Fang Ho

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.17095

2024-03-31

Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract:Aims To synthesise the composition and effectiveness of computer‐based patient decision aid (PDAs) in interventions for patients with chronic diseases. Design A systematic review with meta‐analysis. Methods Five databases were searched, and only randomised controlled trials (RCTs)were included. This review was conducted with the PRISMA guidelines. The JBI Appraisal Tools for randomised trials were used to assess the risk of bias. We used the random‐effects model to conduct meta‐analyses. Evidence from RCTs was synthesised using standardised mean differences or mean differences. The GRADE system was employed to assess the certainty of evidence and recommendations. This study was registered on PROSPERO (number: CRD42022369340). Data Sources PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published before October 2022. Results The review included 22 studies, and most computer‐based PDAs reported information on the disease, treatment options, pros and cons and risk comparison and value clarification. The use of computer‐based PDAs showed a significant effect on decision conflict and knowledge, but not on decision regret, satisfaction, self‐efficacy, anxiety and quality of life. The overall GRADE certainty of evidence was low. Conclusion Although the quality of evidence was low, however, using computer‐based PDAs could reduce decision conflict and enhance knowledge when making medical decisions. More research is needed to support the contention above. Relevance to Clinical Practice Computer‐based PDAs could assist health‐care providers and patients in the shared decision‐making process and improving the quality of decision‐making. Reporting Method This study adhered to PRISMA guidelines. No Patient or Public Contribution

nursing
User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review

Holly O Witteman,Selma Chipenda Dansokho,Heather Colquhoun,Angela Coulter,Michèle Dugas,Angela Fagerlin,Anik MC Giguere,Sholom Glouberman,Lynne Haslett,Aubri Hoffman,Noah Ivers,France Légaré,Jean Légaré,Carrie Levin,Karli Lopez,Victor M Montori,Thierry Provencher,Jean-Sébastien Renaud,Kerri Sparling,Dawn Stacey,Gratianne Vaisson,Robert J Volk,William Witteman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-11

2015-01-26

Systematic Reviews

Abstract:BackgroundProviding patient-centered care requires that patients partner in their personal health-care decisions to the full extent desired. Patient decision aids facilitate processes of shared decision-making between patients and their clinicians by presenting relevant scientific information in balanced, understandable ways, helping clarify patients’ goals, and guiding decision-making processes. Although international standards stipulate that patients and clinicians should be involved in decision aid development, little is known about how such involvement currently occurs, let alone best practices. This systematic review consisting of three interlinked subreviews seeks to describe current practices of user involvement in the development of patient decision aids, compare these to practices of user-centered design, and identify promising strategies.Methods/designA research team that includes patient and clinician representatives, decision aid developers, and systematic review method experts will guide this review according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA reporting guidelines. A medical librarian will hand search key references and use a peer-reviewed search strategy to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the ACM library, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. We will identify articles across all languages and years describing the development or evaluation of a patient decision aid, or the application of user-centered design or human-centered design to tools intended for patient use. Two independent reviewers will assess article eligibility and extract data into a matrix using a structured pilot-tested form based on a conceptual framework of user-centered design. We will synthesize evidence to describe how research teams have included users in their development process and compare these practices to user-centered design methods. If data permit, we will develop a measure of the user-centeredness of development processes and identify practices that are likely to be optimal.DiscussionThis systematic review will provide evidence of current practices to inform approaches for involving patients and other stakeholders in the development of patient decision aids. We anticipate that the results will help move towards the establishment of best practices for the development of patient-centered tools and, in turn, help improve the experiences of people who face difficult health decisions.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014013241

medicine, general & internal
Systematic review of barriers, facilitators, and tools to promote shared decision making in the emergency department

Dirk T. Ubbink,Melissa Matthijssen,Samia Lemrini,Faridi S. van Etten‐Jamaludin,Frank W. Bloemers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14998

2024-08-26

Academic Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Objective The objective was to systematically review all studies focusing on barriers, facilitators, and tools currently available for shared decision making (SDM) in emergency departments (EDs). Background Implementing SDM in EDs seems particularly challenging, considering the fast‐paced environment and sometimes life‐threatening situations. Over 10 years ago, a previous review revealed only a few patient decision aids (PtDAs) available for EDs. Methods Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library, up to November 2023. Observational and interventional studies were included to address barriers or facilitators for SDM or to investigate effects of PtDAs on the level of SDM for patients visiting an ED. Results We screened 1946 studies for eligibility, of which 33 were included. PtDAs studied in EDs address chest pain, syncope, analgesics usage, lumbar puncture, ureterolithiasis, vascular access, concussion/brain bleeding, head‐CT choice, coaching for elderly people, and activation of patients with appendicitis. Only the primary outcome was meta‐analyzed, showing that PtDAs significantly increased the level of SDM (18.8 on the 100‐point OPTION scale; 95% CI 12.5–25.0). PtDAs also tended to increase patient knowledge, decrease decisional conflict and decrease health care services usage, with no obvious effect on overall patient satisfaction. Barriers and facilitators were identified on three levels: (1) patient level—emotions, health literacy, and their own proactivity; (2) clinician level—fear of medicolegal consequences, lack of SDM skills or knowledge, and their ideas about treatment superiority; and (3) system level—time constraints, institutional guidelines, and availability of PtDAs. Conclusions Circumstances in EDs are generally less favorable for SDM. However, PtDAs for conditions seen in EDs are helpful in overcoming barriers to SDM and are welcomed by patients. Even in EDs, SDM is feasible and supported by an increasing number of tools for patients and physicians.

emergency medicine
Effectiveness of Interactive Digital Decision Aids in Prenatal Screening Decision-making: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Hong Yat Conrad Wong,Saba Asim,Qi Feng,Sherry Xiao-hong Fu,Daljit Singh Sahota,Po Lam So,Dong Dong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/37953

IF: 7.076

2023-03-14

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Background Increasing prenatal screening options and limited consultation time have made it difficult for pregnant women to participate in shared decision-making. Interactive digital decision aids (IDDAs) could integrate interactive technology into health care to a facilitate higher-quality decision-making process. Objective The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of IDDAs on pregnant women’s decision-making regarding prenatal screening. Methods We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Google Scholar, and reference lists of included studies until August 2021. We included the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of IDDAs (fulfilling basic criteria of International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration and these were interactive and digital) as an adjunct to standard care with standard care alone and involved pregnant women themselves in prenatal screening decision-making. Data on primary outcomes, that is, knowledge and decisional conflict, and secondary outcomes were extracted, and meta-analyses were conducted based on standardized mean differences (SMDs). Subgroup analysis based on knowledge was performed. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. Results Eight RCTs were identified from 10,283 references, of which 7 were included in quantitative synthesis. Analyses showed that IDDAs increased knowledge (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.26-0.90) and decreased decisional conflict (SMD –0.15, 95% CI –0.25 to –0.05). Substantial heterogeneity in knowledge was identified, which could not be completely resolved through subgroup analysis. Conclusions IDDAs can improve certain aspects of decision-making in prenatal screening among pregnant women, but the results require cautious interpretation.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
The effects of shared decision making on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time: An umbrella review

Joseph Dov Bruch,Maram Khazen,Mersiha Mahmic-Kaknjo,France Légaré,Moriah E Ellen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2024.108408

2024-08-24

Abstract:Objective: To review the effects of shared decision making (SDM) on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review and searched systematic reviews on SDM from PubMed, CINHAL, and Web of Science. We included reviews on SDM interventions used in a health care setting with patients. We assessed the eligibility of retrieved articles and evaluated whether the review addressed Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) characteristics. Results: Out of 3678 records, 48 reviews were included. Half of the reviews focused exclusively on RCT studies (n = 21). A little less than half were focused specifically on decision aids (n = 23). Thirty-two reviews discussed CFIR characteristics explicitly or implicitly; the majority of which were specific to intervention characteristics. Reviews tended to cluster around patient populations and tended to be low or critically low to moderate in their quality. Reviews of SDM on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time were highly uncertain but often ranged from neutral to positive. Conclusions: We observed that SDM implementation did not typically increase costs or increase consultation time while having some neutral to positive benefits on outcomes and quality for certain populations. Gaps in knowledge remain including better research on the climate where SDM is most effective.
Comparison of analog and digital patient decision aids for the treatment of depression: a scoping review

Jana Sedlakova,Anna Lisa Westermair,Nikola Biller-Andorno,Christoph A. Meier,Manuel Trachsel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2023.1208889

2023-09-01

Frontiers in Digital Health

Abstract:Introduction Patient decision aids (PDAs) are important tools to empower patients and integrate their preferences and values in the decision-making process. Even though patients with mental health problems have a strong interest in being more involved in decision making about their treatment, research has mainly focused on PDAs for somatic conditions. In this scoping review, we focus on patients suffering from depression and the role of PDAs for this patient group. The review offers an overview of digital and analog PDAs, their advantages and disadvantages as well as recommendations for further research and development. Methods A systematic search of the existing literature guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was conducted. Three electronic literature databases with the appropriate thematic focus were searched (PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science). The search strategy used controlled and natural language to search for the key concepts decision aids and depression. The articles were selected in a two-step process guided by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We narratively synthetized information extracted from 40 research articles. Results We included 40 articles in our review. Our review revealed that there is more focus on digital PDAs in research than in clinical practice. Digitalization can enhance the benefits of PDAs by developing tools that are more efficient, interactive, and personalized. The main disadvantages of both types of PDAs for the treatment of depression are related to time, dissemination, and capacity building for the health care providers. Digital PDAs need to be regularly updated, effective strategies for their dissemination and acceptance need to be identified, and clinicians need sufficient training on how to use digital PDAs. There is more research needed to study which forms of PDAs are most appropriate for various patient groups (e.g., older adults, or patients with comorbidities), and to identify the most effective ways of PDAs' integration in the clinical workflow. The findings from our review could be well aligned with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. Discussion More research is needed regarding effective strategies for the implementation of digital PDAs into the clinical workflow, ethical issues raised by the digital format, and opportunities of tailoring PDAs for diverse patient groups.
Do health education initiatives assist socioeconomically disadvantaged populations? A systematic review and meta-analyses

E. L. Karran,A. R. Grant,H. Lee,S. J. Kamper,C. M. Williams,L. K. Wiles,R. Shala,C. V. Poddar,T. Astill,G. L. Moseley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15329-z

IF: 4.5

2023-03-08

BMC Public Health

Abstract:Abstract Background Health education interventions are considered critical for the prevention and management of conditions of public health concern. Although the burden of these conditions is often greatest in socio-economically disadvantaged populations, the effectiveness of interventions that target these groups is unknown. We aimed to identify and synthesize evidence of the effectiveness of health-related educational interventions in adult disadvantaged populations. Methods We pre-registered the study on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/ek5yg/ . We searched Medline, Embase, Emcare, and the Cochrane Register from inception to 5/04/2022 to identify studies evaluating the effectiveness of health-related educational interventions delivered to adults in socio-economically disadvantaged populations. Our primary outcome was health related behaviour and our secondary outcome was a relevant biomarker. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Our synthesis strategy involved random-effects meta-analyses and vote-counting. Results We identified 8618 unique records, 96 met our criteria for inclusion – involving more than 57,000 participants from 22 countries. All studies had high or unclear risk of bias. For our primary outcome of behaviour, meta-analyses found a standardised mean effect of education on physical activity of 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.09–0.19), (5 studies, n = 1330) and on cancer screening of 0.29 (95% CI = 0.05–0.52), (5 studies, n = 2388). Considerable statistical heterogeneity was present. Sixty-seven of 81 studies with behavioural outcomes had point estimates favouring the intervention (83% (95% CI = 73%-90%), p < 0.001); 21 of 28 studies with biomarker outcomes showed benefit (75% (95%CI = 56%-88%), p = 0.002). When effectiveness was determined based on conclusions in the included studies, 47% of interventions were effective on behavioural outcomes, and 27% on biomarkers. Conclusions Evidence does not demonstrate consistent, positive impacts of educational interventions on health behaviours or biomarkers in socio-economically disadvantaged populations. Continued investment in targeted approaches, coinciding with development of greater understanding of factors determining successful implementation and evaluation, are important to reduce inequalities in health.

public, environmental & occupational health
Decision aids for prenatal testing: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Lin Yu,Shu Yang,Chunmiao Zhang,Pingping Guo,Xuehui Zhang,Mengmeng Xu,Qi Tian,Xuan Cui,Wei Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14875

IF: 3.057

2021-05-03

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Aims</h3><p>To analyse the effect of decision aids (DAs) used by pregnant women on prenatal testing decisions.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Design</h3><p>Systematic review and meta‐analysis.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Data resources</h3><p>We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Library ending October 2020.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Review methods</h3><p>Papers were selected for analysis in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The meta‐analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.3 software. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook. The result is knowledge, decision conflict, anxiety and other secondary outcomes.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>A total of 18 studies were included in the systematic review and meta‐analysis. Comprehensive analysis showed that DAs could significantly improve knowledge and decision‐making satisfaction, reduce decision conflict, increase the proportion of women who make informed choice and had no influence on anxiety and decision regret.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusions</h3><p>This article systematically reviewed the positive effect of DAs on the decision‐making of pregnant women facing prenatal testing. In the future, nurses should be encouraged to develop DAs in accordance with strict standards and apply them to pregnant women of different backgrounds.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Impact</h3><p>There is a growing consensus that health care should be patient‐centred, and the values and preferences of pregnant women who undergo prenatal testing need to be incorporated into the clinical decision‐making process. This review reports that the use of DAs can increase pregnant women's chances of participating in prenatal testing decisions and may improve the quality of their decision‐making. It also provides information on the role and practice of nurses in promoting evidence‐based prenatal testing for DAs.</p></section>

nursing
Shared decision-making in underserved populations with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review

Aliza Bitton Ben-Zacharia,Jen Smrtka,J Tamar Kalina,Megan Vignos,Stacyann Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2024.105792

Abstract:Background: The concept of shared decision-making (SDM) is valuable to ensure patients receive individualized care. SDM occurs when healthcare providers engage patients in making personal healthcare decisions that could contribute to better long-term outcomes. With the ever-increasing landscape of treatment options available, SDM can be challenging but valuable for patients. Patients from underserved populations are potentially less likely to engage in SDM, impacting their long-term care. This systematic literature review aimed to explore SDM in these patient populations. Methods: Relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed using key search terms, without any restriction on publication date. All searches and data retrieval were conducted between May 25, 2022, and August 17, 2022, and abstracts were reviewed by two independent reviewers. A thematic analysis was used to present the data. Results: All search terms yielded 418 articles; 89 were included (33 involving patients with multiple sclerosis [MS]). Reported mean percentage of patients with MS (including from underserved populations) who preferred SDM was 52 % (range: 37.5-71.5; n = 4). Differences in racial/ethnic assimilation of information communicated by clinicians were reported, impacted by the lower literacy level and certain cultural health beliefs in groups of underserved populations. Primary care clinicians play a key role in providing information to patients in underserved populations. Conclusions: There is a clear benefit for SDM for patients with MS, and without it, patients report dissatisfaction, decisional regret, and lack of confidence in the medical system. However, there are several challenges, including the need for further examination of social determinants of health, for underserved patient populations which still need to be addressed.
Use of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aileen Zeng,Queenie Tang,Edel O'Hagan,Kirsten McCaffery,Kiran Ijaz,Juan C Quiroz,Ahmet Baki Kocaballi,Dana Rezazadegan,Ritu Trivedi,Joyce Siette,Timothy Shaw,Meredith Makeham,Aravinda Thiagalingam,Clara K Chow,Liliana Laranjo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112820

2024-06-29

Abstract:Objectives: To assess the effects of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment decisions in adults with AF. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria: Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated digital patient decision-support tools for AF treatment decisions in adults with AF. Information sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus from 2005 to 2023.Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment: We assessed RoB using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 for RCTs and cluster RCT and the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental studies. Synthesis of results: We used random effects meta-analysis to synthesise decisional conflict and patient knowledge outcomes reported in RCTs. We performed narrative synthesis for all outcomes. The main outcomes of interest were decisional conflict and patient knowledge. Results: 13 articles, reporting on 11 studies (4 RCTs, 1 cluster RCT and 6 quasi-experimental) met the inclusion criteria. There were 2714 participants across all studies (2372 in RCTs), of which 26% were women and the mean age was 71 years. Socioeconomically disadvantaged groups were poorly represented in the included studies. Seven studies (n=2508) focused on non-valvular AF and the mean CHAD2DS2-VASc across studies was 3.2 and for HAS-BLED 1.9. All tools focused on decisions regarding thromboembolic stroke prevention and most enabled calculation of individualised stroke risk. Tools were heterogeneous in features and functions; four tools were patient decision aids. The readability of content was reported in one study. Meta-analyses showed a reduction in decisional conflict (4 RCTs (n=2167); standardised mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.30 to -0.08; p=0.001; I2=26.5%; moderate certainty evidence) corresponding to a decrease in 12.4 units on a scale of 0 to 100 (95% CI -19.5 to -5.2) and improvement in patient knowledge (2 RCTs (n=1057); risk difference 0.72, 95% CI 0.68, 0.76, p<0.001; I2=0%; low certainty evidence) favouring digital patient decision-support tools compared with usual care. Four of the 11 tools were publicly available and 3 had been implemented in healthcare delivery. Conclusions: In the context of stroke prevention in AF, digital patient decision-support tools likely reduce decisional conflict and may result in little to no change in patient knowledge, compared with usual care. Future studies should leverage digital capabilities for increased personalisation and interactivity of the tools, with better consideration of health literacy and equity aspects. Additional robust trials and implementation studies are warranted. Prospero registration number: CRD42020218025.
Boosting AthaMap Database Content with Data from Protein Binding Microarrays.

R. Hehl,Leo Norval,Artyom Romanov,L. Bülow

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcv156

IF: 4.9

Plant and Cell Physiology

Abstract:The AthaMap database generates a map of predicted transcription factor binding sites (TFBS) and small RNA target sites for the whole Arabidopsis thaliana genome. With the advent of protein binding microarrays (PBM), the number of known TFBS for A. thaliana transcription factors (TFs) has increased dramatically. Using 113 positional weight matrices (PWMs) generated from a single PBM study and representing a total number of 68 different TFs, the number of predicted TFBS in AthaMap was now increased by about 3.8 × 10(7) to 4.9 × 10(7). The number of TFs with PWM-predicted TFBS annotated in AthaMap has increased to 126, representing a total of 29 TF families and newly including ARF, AT-Hook, YABBY, LOB/AS2 and SRS. Furthermore, links from all Arabidopsis TFs and genes to the newly established Arabidopsis Information Portal (AIP) have been implemented. With this qualitative and quantitative update, the improved AthaMap increases its value as a resource for the analysis of A. thaliana gene expression regulation at www.athamap.de.
Vitamin K and the older infant.

J. Lukens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHPEDI.1972.02110170017001

1972-11-01

A M A Journal of Diseases of Children

Abstract:Physicians attentive to the preventive aspects of medical practice have long recognized the importance of vitamin K prophylaxis in the prevention of hemorrhagic disease of the newborn. Pathologic bleeding due to vitamin K deficiency in older infants and children is generally approached with less familiarity. In a paper published 26 years ago in this journal, Rapoport and Dodd 1 reported observations made on a group of seven infants, 2 to 12 months of age, with chronic diarrhea. Each of the infants was hypoprothrombinemic and four experienced symptomatic bleeding. Both clinical and laboratory manifestations of the coagulopathy were effectively corrected with vitamin K. The paper seems to have attracted little attention, and the subject of vitamin K deficiency in older infants with intestinal disturbances lay dormant for two decades. In recent years, reports such as that by Walters and Koch in this issue (page 641) have served to rekindle interest in
Comparative Effectiveness of Decision Aids for Cancer-Screening Decision Making: An Overview of Reviews

Masaya Hibino,Chisato Hamashima,Miyuki Hirosue,Mitsunaga Iwata,Teruhiko Terasawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09001-4

2024-09-04

Abstract:Background: Decision aids (DAs), compared to no DAs, help improve the key aspects of shared decision-making, including increased knowledge, discussion frequency, and reduction in decisional conflict. However, systematic reviews have reported varied conclusions on screening uptake, and which DAs are superior to alternative forms in shared decision-making for cancer screening has not been comprehensively reviewed. Methods: An overview of systematic reviews was performed. Multiple databases were searched up to December 31, 2023, for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NRCSs) of any size that assessed a decision aid aimed to facilitate cancer-screening decision making communications. Dual screening of abstracts and full-text reports, dual data extraction and quality assessment, and qualitative synthesis were performed. Results: The 22 eligible publications included 24 reviews on cancer screening DAs for a single specific cancer (8, 8, 7, and 1 on prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancer, respectively) and three reviews on multiple aggregate cancers. Individual reviews were based on different primary study designs (92 RCTs and 37 NRCSs); each study was infrequently cited (median citation count 2; range 1-9). Although the DAs had variable formats and delivery methods, the reviews generally focused on use and non-use comparisons. DAs decreased the intention or actual uptake for prostate and breast cancer screening, but increased it for colorectal cancer screening. DAs were associated with increased knowledge, well-informed choice, and reduced decisional conflict, regardless of cancer type. Only four reviews on comparative effectiveness between alternative formats of DAs (based on 14 RCTs and 2 NRCSs) failed to conclude on the specific format that was superior to others. Discussion: DAs improve cancer screening shared decision-making by boosting cancer screening knowledge and informed choice and lowering decisional conflict and may facilitate preference-based, individualized screening participation. Comparative data on different cancer screening DAs are limited. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021235957.

Unusual metastases from malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Decision aids for promoting shared decision‐making: A review of systematic reviews

Quality of Patient Decision Aids to Support the Public Making COVID-19 Decisions: An Online Environmental Scan

Can health information and decision aids decrease inequity in health care? A systematic review on the equality of their effectiveness

Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review

Beyond pros and cons - developing a patient decision aid to cultivate dialog to build relationships: insights from a qualitative study and decision aid development

Decision aids: challenges for practice when we have confidence in effectiveness

Effectiveness of computerised decision aids for patients with chronic diseases in shared decision‐making: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review

Systematic review of barriers, facilitators, and tools to promote shared decision making in the emergency department

Effectiveness of Interactive Digital Decision Aids in Prenatal Screening Decision-making: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The effects of shared decision making on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time: An umbrella review

Comparison of analog and digital patient decision aids for the treatment of depression: a scoping review

Do health education initiatives assist socioeconomically disadvantaged populations? A systematic review and meta-analyses

Decision aids for prenatal testing: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Shared decision-making in underserved populations with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review

Use of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Boosting AthaMap Database Content with Data from Protein Binding Microarrays.

Vitamin K and the older infant.

Comparative Effectiveness of Decision Aids for Cancer-Screening Decision Making: An Overview of Reviews