No abstract

BackgroundConsensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids.MethodsBuilding on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary.ResultsValues clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single “best” practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect.ConclusionsValues clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness.

(266 words)Background. Values clarification is a recommended element of patient decision

♦ Background:Patients are satisfied with their kidney care but want more support in making dialysis choices. Predialysis leaflets vary across services, with few being sufficient to enable patients' informed decision making. We describe the acceptability of a patient decision aid and feasibility of evaluating its effectiveness within usual predialysis practice.♦ Methods:Prospective non-randomized comparison design, Usual Care or Usual Care Plus Yorkshire Dialysis Decision Aid Booklet (+YoDDA), in 6 referral centers (Yorkshire-Humber, UK) for patients with sustained deterioration of kidney function. Consenting (C) patients completed questionnaires after predialysis consultation (T1), and 6 weeks later (T2). Measures assessed YoDDA's utility to support patients' decisions and integration within usual care.♦ Results:Usual Care (n = 105) and +YoDDA (n = 84) participant characteristics were similar: male (62%), white (94%), age (mean = 62.6; standard deviation [SD] 14.4), kidney disease severity (glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] mean = 14.7; SD 3.7); decisional conflict was < 25; choice-preference for home versus hospital dialysis approximately 50:50. Patients valued receiving YoDDA, reading it on their own (96%), and sharing it with family (72%). The +YoDDA participants had higher scores for understanding kidney disease, reasoning about options, feeling in control, sharing their decision with family. Study engagement varied by center (estimated range 14 – 49%; mean 45%); participants varied in completion of decision quality measures.♦ Conclusions:Receiving YoDDA as part of predialysis education was valued and useful to patients with worsening kidney disease. Integrating YoDDA actively within predialysis programs will meet clinical guidelines and patient need to support dialysis decision making in the context of patients' lifestyle.

Abstract:)258)words)(max)275)"Background."Diverse"values"clarification"methods"exist."It"is"important"to"understand"

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are chronic relapsing disorders that have a negative impact on quality of life. They can be highly disabling and have been associated with sleep disturbance. The aim of our study was to evaluate the sleep quality of a large cohort of IBD patients to identify possible associated cofactors. We prospectively recruited consecutive patients attending the IBD Unit of “Azienda Ospedaliera” of Padua from November 2018 to May 2019 and collected demographics and clinical characteristics. The patients completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the IBD questionnaire (IBDQ), the IBD-Disability Index (IBD-DI) questionnaire, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (9-HADS). A multivariate regression model was applied to assess independent risk factors of sleep disturbance among IBD-related variables, disability, quality of life, anxiety, and depression. We investigated the sleep quality of 166 patients with IBD, finding 67.5% of them suffering from sleep disturbance. In particular, low quality of life, presence of disability and extraintestinal manifestations were identified as independent risk factors of sleep disturbance. We discovered that all depressed patients were also affected by sleep disturbance, while we found no difference in sleep disturbance between patients with or without anxiety state. However, a positive correlation was reported between both anxiety and depression scores and PSQI score (Spearman correlation: r = 0.31 and r = 0.38 respectively). Our study showed that sleep quality is not directly associated with an active or inactive IBD state or with the ongoing treatment, but it is mostly correlated with the patients’ mood state, disability, and quality of life. Gastroenterologists and psychologists should join forces during clinical outpatients’ visits to evaluate emotional states for a better IBD management.

Background Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment. Purpose To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Study Selection We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods. Data Extraction Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation. Data Synthesis Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ2 = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ2 = 6.08, P = 0.05). Limitations Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories. Conclusions Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Background This article evaluates the evidence for the inclusion of patient narratives in patient decision aids (PtDAs). We define patient narratives as stories, testimonials, or anecdotes that provide illustrative examples of the experiences of others that are relevant to the decision at hand. Method To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of narratives in PtDAs, we conducted a narrative scoping review of the literature from January 2013 through June 2019 to identify relevant literature published since the last International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) update in 2013. We considered research articles that examined the impact of narratives on relevant outcomes or described relevant theoretical mechanisms. Results The majority of the empirical work on narratives did not measure concepts that are typically found in the PtDA literature (e.g., decisional conflict). Yet, a few themes emerged from our review that can be applied to the PtDA context, including the impact of narratives on relevant outcomes (knowledge, behavior change, and psychological constructs), as well as several theoretical mechanisms about how and why narratives work that can be applied to the PtDA context. Conclusion Based on this evidence update, we suggest that there may be situations when narratives could enhance the effectiveness of PtDAs. The recent theoretical work on narratives has underscored the fact that narratives are a multifaceted construct and should no longer be considered a binary option (include narratives or not). However, the bottom line is that the evidence does not support a recommendation for narratives to be a necessary component of PtDAs.