Peering into the black box: a meta-analysis of how clinicians use decision aids during clinical encounters

Abstract

ObjectiveTo quantify the extent to which clinicians use clinically-efficacious decision aids as intended during implementation in practice and how fidelity to usage instructions correlates with shared decision making (SDM) outcomes.MethodsParticipant-level meta-analysis including six practice-based randomized controlled trials of SDM in various clinical settings encompassing a range of decisions.ResultsOf 339 encounters in the SDM intervention arm of the trials, 229 were video recorded and available for analysis. The mean proportion of fidelity items observed in each encounter was 58.4% (SD = 23.2). The proportion of fidelity items observed was significantly associated with patient knowledge (p = 0.01) and clinician involvement of the patient in decision making (p <0.0001), while no association was found with patient decisional conflict or satisfaction with the encounter.ConclusionClinicians’ fidelity to usage instructions of point-of-care decision aids in randomized trials was suboptimal during their initial implementation in practice, which may have underestimated the potential efficacy of decision aids when used as intended.

Development and Pilot Testing of an Encounter Tool for Shared Decision Making About the Treatment of Graves' Disease

“…In control group visits, this score reflects the extent to which elements of the tool were already present as part of the usual care of GD patients at Mayo Clinic. Assessing fidelity is important because the design of the DA can accommodate a range of clinician uses, some of which do not lead to shared decision making (14). Finally, the final treatment option for each patient was extracted, and the treatment decision was compared between the two arms.…”

Assessment of cardiovascular risk in primary care

“…10 They also focus the consultation towards the patient as the data are reviewed. 11 Evidence suggests that they do not increase the uptake of therapy overall and may do the opposite. 12 Patients should be informed about the limitations of CVD risk assessment tools, which provide only an approximate value of risk and may misclassify high risk status at an individual level.…”

PCI Choice Decision Aid for Stable Coronary Artery Disease

“…10 Previous work suggests that in-visit tools, developed with user-centered design methods and delivered by clinicians, may lead to greater patient involvement. [11][12][13] However, consistent clinician engagement is lacking and implementation of SDM is low, likely because of an interplay of a paternalistic culture, clinician educational gaps, and few decision aids that are easy to use during the clinic visit. 14 In response to data that patients misinterpret the benefit of PCI for stable CAD, 3 we designed a decision aid (PCI Choice) to be delivered by clinicians for use during the clinical visit when there was a choice to be made between OMT and PCI.…”