The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: Do checklists damage the quality of informed choice interventions?

被引:65
作者
Bekker, Hilary L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Leeds, Leeds Inst Hlth Sci, Sch Med, RAPID Grp, Leeds LS2 9LJ, W Yorkshire, England
关键词
Informed choice; Patient decision making; Shared decision making; IPDAS; Decision aids; Heuristic and bias; Framing; Patient-centred care; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; INFORMATION; MODEL; PREFERENCES; RETHINKING; HEURISTICS; ENCOUNTER; FRAMEWORK; BARRIERS; LEAFLETS;
D O I
10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.002
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Objective: To discuss whether using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration checklist as a gold standard to judge interventions' quality is premature and potentially detrimental to the validity of resources designed to help patients make treatment choices. Methods: Conceptual review integrating the science behind individuals' decision making with the demands of designing complex, healthcare interventions. Results: Patient decision aids are promoted as interventions to help professionals engage in shared and/or patient-centred care. The IPDAS domains were informed by experts' opinions of best practice. Decision scientists study how individuals make decisions, what biases their choices and how best to support decisions. There is debate from decision scientists about which component parts are the active ingredients that help people make decisions. Conclusions: Interventions to help patients make choices have different purposes, component parts and outcomes to those facilitating professional-patient communications. The IPDAS checklist will change to respond to new evidence from the decision sciences. Practice implications: Adhering uncritically to the IPDAS checklist may reduce service variation but is not sufficient to ensure interventions enable good patient decision making. Developers must be encouraged to reason about the IPDAS checklist to identify those component parts that do (not) meet their intervention's purpose. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:357 / 364
页数:8
相关论文
共 112 条
[91]   How to define and measure concordance between patients' preferences and medical treatments: A systematic review of approaches and recommendations for standardization [J].
Sepucha, Karen ;
Ozanne, Elissa M. .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2010, 78 (01) :12-23
[92]   Information leakage from logically equivalent frames [J].
Sher, Shlomi ;
McKenzie, Craig R. M. .
COGNITION, 2006, 101 (03) :467-494
[93]   A communication model of shared decision making: Accounting for cancer treatment decisions [J].
Siminoff, LA ;
Step, MA .
HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 24 (04) :S99-S105
[94]   EFFECTS OF OUTCOME FRAMING ON TREATMENT DECISIONS IN THE REAL WORLD - IMPACT OF FRAMING ON ADJUVANT BREAST-CANCER DECISIONS [J].
SIMINOFF, LA ;
FETTING, JH .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1989, 9 (04) :262-271
[95]  
SIMON HA, 1988, DECISION MAKING DESC
[96]   It was a snap decision: Parental and professional perspectives on the speed of decisions about participation in perinatal randomised controlled trials [J].
Snowdon, C ;
Elbourne, D ;
Garcia, J .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2006, 62 (09) :2279-2290
[97]  
Sox H., 1999, Effective Clinical Practice, V2, P196
[98]   Concise evaluation of decision aids [J].
Stalmeier, Peep F. M. ;
Roosmalen, Marielle S. .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2009, 74 (01) :104-109
[99]   The application of the Heuristic-Systematic Processing Model to treatment decision making about prostate cancer [J].
Steginga, SK ;
Occhipinti, S .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2004, 24 (06) :573-583
[100]  
STIGGELBOUT AM, 2000, DECISION MAKING HLTH, pCH11