Are We Improving? Update and Critical Appraisal of the Reporting of Decision Process and Quality Measures in Trials Evaluating Patient Decision Aids

Trenaman, Logan; Jansen, Jesse; Blumenthal‐Barby, Jennifer; Körner, Mirjam; Lally, Joanne; Matlock, Daniel D.; Perestelo‐Pérez, Lilisbeth; Ropka, Mary E.; Stirling, CM; Valentine, K. D.; Vo, Ha; Wills, Celia E.; Thomson, Richard; Sepucha, Karen

doi:10.1177/0272989x211011120

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The articles in the IPDAS Update 2.0 series reflect the 11 broad domains. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Two of the broad domains published 2 articles: communicating probabilities about outcomes 3,4 and health literacy. 9,10 Other topics suggested for this update were theories and mechanisms, training in shared decision making, application of shared decision making in support of chronic conditions, whether or not to provide probabilities, and targeting specific disadvantaged populations.…”

Section: Current Evidence Updatementioning

confidence: 99%

The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0

Stacey

Volk

Witteman³

2021

Med Decis Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Established in 2003, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration aims to enhance the quality and effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) by establishing a shared evidence-informed framework to guide developers and researchers in their development, content, evaluation, and implementation. The original IPDAS checklist, based on evidence syntheses, focused on components of PtDAs known to support informed, values-based reasoning and engagement with health care professionals. In this article, we present IPDAS Evidence Update 2.0. The 13 articles that make up this update provide the latest evidence on 11 core IPDAS domains: development process, 1 providing balanced information, 2 communicating probabilities of outcomes, 3,4 clarifying values, 5 using personal stories, 6 guidance and decision coaching, 7 disclosing conflicts of interest, 8 health literacy, 9,10 basing information on scientific evidence, 11 measuring effectiveness, 12 and implementation of PtDAs.

show abstract

Section: Current Evidence Updatementioning

confidence: 99%

The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0

Stacey

Volk

Witteman³

2021

Med Decis Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7 In the time since this study began, consensus on the best proxy measure for shared decision-making has weakened, and alternative constructs have been proposed as potentially better gauges for the assessing the quality of patient decisions. 8…”

Section: Evidence-based Methods May Not Always Be Sufficientmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons learned from conducting the first cancer care delivery trial in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance A191402CD)

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Testing healthcare delivery interventions in rigorous clinical trials is a critical step in improving patient care, but conducting multisite randomized clinical trials to test the effect of care delivery interventions has unique challenges and requires foresight and planning. Methods: We conducted the first care delivery trial (A191402CD) in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, a National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program research base, which tested the effectiveness of two different decision aids for supporting shared decision-making about prostate cancer treatment. Our experience illustrates the kind of challenges that confront care delivery researchers as they seek to test interventions to improve the experiences of patients. Results: Lessons learned include the following: cluster-randomized designs introduce complexity; workflow disruption can discourage site participation; evidence-based methods may not always be sufficient. Conclusion: We conclude with the following recommendations: assessing feasibility requires special rigor; relationships and interpersonal dynamics must be leveraged. Our experiences may inform future care delivery research.

show abstract

“…Measures of the quality of preference-sensitive decisions that focus on whether patients are informed and involved have been developed and are being increasingly deployed in studies of pDAs. 20 One approach combines measures of "gist" knowledge of key facts and a 4-item Shared Decision Making Process Scale that has been extensively validated. 21…”

Section: Patient Decision Aids To Facilitate Sdmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaboration and Shared Decision-Making Between Patients and Clinicians in Preventive Health Care Decisions and US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations

Davidson

Mangione

Barry

et al. 2022

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) works to improve the health of people nationwide by making evidence-based recommendations for preventive services. Patient-centered care is a core value in US health care. Shared decision-making (SDM), in which patients and clinicians make health decisions together, ensures patients’ rights to be informed and involved in preventive care decisions and that these decisions are patient-centered. SDM has a role across the spectrum of USPSTF recommendations. For A or B recommendations (judged by the USPSTF to have high or moderate certainty of a moderate or substantial net benefit at the population level), SDM allows individual patients to decide whether to accept such services based on their personal values and preferences. For C recommendations (indicating at least moderate certainty of a small net benefit at the population level), SDM is critical for individual patients to decide whether the net benefit for them is worthwhile. For D recommendations (reflecting at least moderate certainty of a zero or negative net benefit) or I statements (low certainty of net benefit), clinicians should be prepared to discuss these services if patients ask. More evidence is needed to determine if, in addition to promoting patient-centeredness, SDM reduces inequities in preventive care, as well as to define new strategies to find time for discussion of preventive services in primary care.

show abstract

Are We Improving? Update and Critical Appraisal of the Reporting of Decision Process and Quality Measures in Trials Evaluating Patient Decision Aids

Cited by 13 publications

References 27 publications

The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0

The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0

Lessons learned from conducting the first cancer care delivery trial in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance A191402CD)

Collaboration and Shared Decision-Making Between Patients and Clinicians in Preventive Health Care Decisions and US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About