Balancing the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids: an updated review

被引:63
作者
Abhyankar, Purva [1 ]
Volk, Robert J. [2 ]
Blumenthal-Barby, Jennifer [3 ]
Bravo, Paulina [4 ,5 ]
Buchholz, Angela [6 ]
Ozanne, Elissa [7 ]
Vidal, Dale Colins [8 ,9 ]
Col, Nananda [10 ,11 ]
Stalmeier, Peep [12 ]
机构
[1] Univ Stirling, Nursing Midwifery & Allied Hlth Profess Res Unit, Stirling FK9 4NF, Scotland
[2] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Gen Internal Med, Unit 1465, Houston, TX 77230 USA
[3] Baylor Coll Med, Ctr Med Eth & Hlth Policy, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[4] Pontificia Univ Catolica Chile, Sch Nursing, Dept Womans Hlth, Santiago 7820436, Chile
[5] Cardiff Univ, Sch Med, Inst Med Genet, Cardiff CF14 4Y5, S Glam, Wales
[6] Univ Med Ctr Hamburg Eppendorf, Dept Med Psychol, D-20246 Hamburg, Germany
[7] Univ Calif San Francisco, Inst Hlth Policy Studies, San Francisco, CA 94118 USA
[8] Dartmouth Hitchcock Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Lebanon, NH 03766 USA
[9] Geisel Sch Med, Dartmouth Inst Hlth Policy & Clin Practice, Lebanon, NH 03766 USA
[10] Univ New England, Coll Osteopath Med, Biddeford, ME 04005 USA
[11] Univ New England, Ctr Excellence Neurosci, Biddeford, ME 04005 USA
[12] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Dept Epidemiol Biostat & HTA, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; PROSTATE-CANCER; SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES; QUALITY; WOMEN; RISK; CHOICES; IMPACT; TAMOXIFEN; KNOWLEDGE;
D O I
10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S6
中图分类号
R-058 [];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Standards for patient decision aids require that information and options be presented in a balanced manner; this requirement is based on the argument that balanced presentation is essential to foster informed decision making. If information is presented in an incomplete/non-neutral manner, it can stimulate cognitive biases that can unduly affect individuals' knowledge, perceptions of risks and benefits, and, ultimately, preferences. However, there is little clarity about what constitutes balance, and how it can be determined and enhanced. We conducted a literature review to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to balancing the presentation of information and options. Methods: A literature search related to patient decision aids and balance was conducted on Medline, using MeSH terms and PubMed; this search supplemented the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration's review of patient decision aids trials. Only English language articles relevant to patient decision making and addressing the balance of information and options were included. All members of the team independently screened clusters of articles; uncertainties were resolved by seeking review by another member. The team then worked in sub-groups to extract and synthesise data on theory, definitions, and evidence reported in these studies. Results: A total of 40 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, six explained the rationale for balancing the presentation of information and options. Twelve defined "balance"; the definition of "balance" that emerged is as follows: " The complete and unbiased presentation of the relevant options and the information about those options-in content and in format-in a way that enables individuals to process this information without bias". Ten of the 40 articles reported assessing the balance of the relevant decision aid. All 10 did so exclusively from the users' or patients' perspective, using a five-point Likert-type scale. Presenting information in a side-by-side display form was associated with more respondents (ranging from 70% to 96%) judging the information as " balanced". Conclusion: There is a need for comparative studies investigating different ways to improve and measure balance in the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 57 条
[1]   "The Booklet Helped Me Not to Panic" A Pilot of a Decision Aid for Asymptomatic Women With Ovarian Cancer and With Rising CA-125 Levels [J].
Anderson, Caroline ;
Carter, Jonathan ;
Nattress, Kathryn ;
Beale, Philip ;
Philp, Shannon ;
Harrison, James ;
Juraskova, Ilona .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2011, 21 (04) :737-743
[2]  
[Anonymous], BMC PREGNANCY CHILDB
[3]  
[Anonymous], EFFECT PATIENT UNPUB
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2012 UPDATE INT PATI
[5]  
[Anonymous], IPDAS COLLABORATION
[6]  
[Anonymous], INF CONS
[7]  
[Anonymous], THINKING DECIDING
[8]  
Bekker H, 1999, Health Technol Assess, V3, P1
[9]   Decision aids and uptake of screening [J].
Bekker, Hilary L. .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 341
[10]   The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: Do checklists damage the quality of informed choice interventions? [J].
Bekker, Hilary L. .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2010, 78 (03) :357-364