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-

A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: Update of Medical Research Council guidance

Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance

Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance

Development and evaluation of complex intervention]

From complex social interventions to interventions in complex social systems: Future directions and unresolved questions for intervention development and evaluation

Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance

Beyond interviews and focus groups: a framework for integrating innovative qualitative methods into randomised controlled trials of complex public health interventions

[Development, appraisal and synthesis of complex interventions - a methodological challenge]

Development and introduction of complex intervention development and evaluation framework

Time to STEP UP: methods and findings from the development of guidance to help researchers design inclusive clinical trials

Evaluation and validation of social and psychological markers in randomised trials of complex interventions in mental health: a methodological research programme

Updating the critical steps of the quality implementation framework: a protocol for an umbrella review of reviews

The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions

Designing studies and reviews to produce informative, trustworthy evidence about complex interventions in rehabilitation: a narrative review and commentary

Unpacking the Cinderella black box of complex intervention development through the Partners at Care Transitions (PACT) programme of research

The barriers and facilitators to the implementation of National Clinical Programmes in Ireland: using the MRC framework for process evaluations

Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework

Evaluation frameworks in health services: An integrative review of use, attributes and elements

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

Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework

A Framework for Risk-Benefit Evaluations in Biomedical Research