Let’s Require Patients to Review a High-quality Decision Aid Before Receiving Important Tests and Treatments

Fowler, Floyd J.; Barry, Michael J.; Sepucha, Karen; Moulton, Benjamin W.

doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000001440

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…24 The certification program is noteworthy because it provides a heightened level of legal protection to clinicians who use certified PtDAs with their patients. 25 , 26 This program typically announces a call for PtDAs based on specific conditions (e.g., vaginal birth after caesarean, joint replacement), and certified PtDAs are announced on their website. Concurrently, the IPDAS criteria are: being used by the Norwegian Health Department for reviewing PtDAs approved for the national platform, 27 being used for the International A to Z Inventory at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 28 formally approved in the Netherlands by national stakeholders, 29 and they were proposed for national standards for certification of PtDAs by the National Quality Forum.…”

Section: History Of the Ipdas Collaborationmentioning

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: History Of the Ipdas Collaborationmentioning

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

“…Many of the aforementioned research studies use the dedicated researcher's time for devoted education and are not realistic at most medical appointments, especially during the information‐packed first prenatal visit 32 . A solution is to compensate physicians for providing decision aids to increase use 33 . Among our participants, several of them suggested providing the information prior to the appointment when the decision must be made, for example, via a patient portal message, to give adequate time to deliberate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…32 A solution is to compensate physicians for providing decision aids to increase use. 33 Among our participants, several of them suggested providing the information prior to the appointment when the decision must be made, for example, via a patient portal message, to give adequate time to deliberate. Lewis et al made a similar argument, 19 noting that the appointment could then be used to field questions instead of introducing the content for the first time, allowing patients to clarify their decisional needs based on reliable information and their personal values and beliefs, while avoiding the potential routinization of the screen or inadvertently increasing anxiety among those who do not understand that screening is not diagnostic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the experiences and perspectives of prenatal screening among a diverse cohort

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Rapid advances in prenatal genetic screening technology make it difficult for providers to deliver adequate prenatal counseling. The aim of this study was to understand how prenatal screening educational approaches can meet the needs of patients. Methods:Qualitative content analysis was conducted on a diverse population who were interviewed to explore their perceived experiences and preferences for prenatal screening educational delivery.Results: Twenty-two women from three US sites were interviewed. Participants were racially/ethnically diverse with 22.7% identifying as Black or African American (n = 5), 40.9% as Hispanic (n = 9), and 4.5% as Pacific Islander (n = 1). Four themes were identified: prenatal screening education, prenatal screening decision-making, return of results, and suggestions for creating a decision aid. Most results were consistent with previous research not targeting a diverse population. Discussion/Conclusion:Our results indicate that learning style preferences vary between patients and that current methods are not consistently satisfying patient's desire for understanding, particularly with 'high-risk' results, suggesting that a standardized tool could improve knowledge and decrease decisional conflict. This diverse cohort suggested a list and description of each of the testing options offered, information about each condition being screened for, a timeline for the testing and return of results, costs associated, and non-technical language. Key points What is already known about this topic?� Advances in prenatal genetic screening technology make it difficult for providers to deliver adequate prenatal counseling.� Individuals from diverse or limited resource settings are less likely to access genetic testing.� Additionally, minoritized patients receiving poorer and less patient-centered communication from providers may contribute to disparities in screening uptake. What does this study add?� We described the qualitative experience of prenatal genetic screening education and decision-making among a diverse cohort of patients in the United States.

show abstract

“…vide information to patients and help them consider their values and choices, 3,10 SDM does not hinge on the use of an explicit tool. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] There are many approaches to and interpretations of SDM; the Ottawa Decision Support Framework reviews and details these many considerations at length in its 2020 revision. 19 TABLE 2 11,[15][16][17][20][21][22] highlights various SDM frameworks and the steps involved.…”

Section: Continuedmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to integrate shared decision-making into your practice

Mackwood¹

2023

The Journal of Family Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Let’s Require Patients to Review a High-quality Decision Aid Before Receiving Important Tests and Treatments

Cited by 8 publications

References 33 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

Understanding the experiences and perspectives of prenatal screening among a diverse cohort

How to integrate shared decision-making into your practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About