Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: Systematic review

Annette O'Connor, Alaa Rostom, Valerie Fiset, Jacqueline Tetroe, Vikki Entwistle, Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas, Margaret Holmes-Rovner, Michael Barry, Jean Jones

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

610 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. To conduct a systematic review of randomised trials of patient decision aids in improving decision making and outcomes. Design. We included randomised trials of interventions providing structured, detailed, and specific information on treatment or screening options and outcomes to aid decision making. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data on several evaluation criteria. Results were pooled by using weighted mean differences and relative risks. Results. 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the controls, decision aids produced higher knowledge scores (weighted mean difference = 19/100, 95% confidence interval 14 to 25); lower decisional conflict scores (weighted mean difference = -0.3/5, -0.4 to -0.1); more active patient participation in decision making (relative risk = 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 4); and no differences in anxiety, satisfaction with decisions (weighted mean difference = 0.6/100, -3 to 4), or satisfaction with the decision making process (2/100, -3 to 7). Decision aids had a variable effect on decisions. When complex decision aids were compared with simpler versions, they were better at reducing decisional conflict, improved knowledge marginally, but did not affect satisfaction. Conclusions. Decision aids improve knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and stimulate patients to be more active in decision making without increasing their anxiety. Decision aids have little effect on satisfaction and a variable effect on decisions. The effects on outcomes of decisions (persistence with choice, quality of life) remain uncertain.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)731-734
Number of pages4
JournalBritish Medical Journal
Volume319
Issue number7212
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 18 Sep 1999

Fingerprint

Decision Support Techniques
Decision Making
Health
Therapeutics
Anxiety
Confidence Intervals
Patient Participation
Quality of Life
Conflict (Psychology)

Cite this

O'Connor, A., Rostom, A., Fiset, V., Tetroe, J., Entwistle, V., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., ... Jones, J. (1999). Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 319(7212), 731-734. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.731

Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions : Systematic review. / O'Connor, Annette; Rostom, Alaa; Fiset, Valerie; Tetroe, Jacqueline; Entwistle, Vikki; Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary; Holmes-Rovner, Margaret; Barry, Michael; Jones, Jean.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 319, No. 7212, 18.09.1999, p. 731-734.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

O'Connor, A, Rostom, A, Fiset, V, Tetroe, J, Entwistle, V, Llewellyn-Thomas, H, Holmes-Rovner, M, Barry, M & Jones, J 1999, 'Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: Systematic review' British Medical Journal, vol. 319, no. 7212, pp. 731-734. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.731
O'Connor A, Rostom A, Fiset V, Tetroe J, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas H et al. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: Systematic review. British Medical Journal. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):731-734. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.731
O'Connor, Annette ; Rostom, Alaa ; Fiset, Valerie ; Tetroe, Jacqueline ; Entwistle, Vikki ; Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary ; Holmes-Rovner, Margaret ; Barry, Michael ; Jones, Jean. / Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions : Systematic review. In: British Medical Journal. 1999 ; Vol. 319, No. 7212. pp. 731-734.
@article{e4e575c18a5d437eb4a7a411932ba495,
title = "Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: Systematic review",
abstract = "Objective. To conduct a systematic review of randomised trials of patient decision aids in improving decision making and outcomes. Design. We included randomised trials of interventions providing structured, detailed, and specific information on treatment or screening options and outcomes to aid decision making. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data on several evaluation criteria. Results were pooled by using weighted mean differences and relative risks. Results. 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the controls, decision aids produced higher knowledge scores (weighted mean difference = 19/100, 95{\%} confidence interval 14 to 25); lower decisional conflict scores (weighted mean difference = -0.3/5, -0.4 to -0.1); more active patient participation in decision making (relative risk = 2.27, 95{\%} confidence interval 1.3 to 4); and no differences in anxiety, satisfaction with decisions (weighted mean difference = 0.6/100, -3 to 4), or satisfaction with the decision making process (2/100, -3 to 7). Decision aids had a variable effect on decisions. When complex decision aids were compared with simpler versions, they were better at reducing decisional conflict, improved knowledge marginally, but did not affect satisfaction. Conclusions. Decision aids improve knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and stimulate patients to be more active in decision making without increasing their anxiety. Decision aids have little effect on satisfaction and a variable effect on decisions. The effects on outcomes of decisions (persistence with choice, quality of life) remain uncertain.",
author = "Annette O'Connor and Alaa Rostom and Valerie Fiset and Jacqueline Tetroe and Vikki Entwistle and Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas and Margaret Holmes-Rovner and Michael Barry and Jean Jones",
note = "Medline is the source for the MeSH terms of this document.",
year = "1999",
month = "9",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.319.7212.731",
language = "English",
volume = "319",
pages = "731--734",
journal = "BMJ",
issn = "0959-8146",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7212",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions

T2 - Systematic review

AU - O'Connor, Annette

AU - Rostom, Alaa

AU - Fiset, Valerie

AU - Tetroe, Jacqueline

AU - Entwistle, Vikki

AU - Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary

AU - Holmes-Rovner, Margaret

AU - Barry, Michael

AU - Jones, Jean

N1 - Medline is the source for the MeSH terms of this document.

PY - 1999/9/18

Y1 - 1999/9/18

N2 - Objective. To conduct a systematic review of randomised trials of patient decision aids in improving decision making and outcomes. Design. We included randomised trials of interventions providing structured, detailed, and specific information on treatment or screening options and outcomes to aid decision making. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data on several evaluation criteria. Results were pooled by using weighted mean differences and relative risks. Results. 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the controls, decision aids produced higher knowledge scores (weighted mean difference = 19/100, 95% confidence interval 14 to 25); lower decisional conflict scores (weighted mean difference = -0.3/5, -0.4 to -0.1); more active patient participation in decision making (relative risk = 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 4); and no differences in anxiety, satisfaction with decisions (weighted mean difference = 0.6/100, -3 to 4), or satisfaction with the decision making process (2/100, -3 to 7). Decision aids had a variable effect on decisions. When complex decision aids were compared with simpler versions, they were better at reducing decisional conflict, improved knowledge marginally, but did not affect satisfaction. Conclusions. Decision aids improve knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and stimulate patients to be more active in decision making without increasing their anxiety. Decision aids have little effect on satisfaction and a variable effect on decisions. The effects on outcomes of decisions (persistence with choice, quality of life) remain uncertain.

AB - Objective. To conduct a systematic review of randomised trials of patient decision aids in improving decision making and outcomes. Design. We included randomised trials of interventions providing structured, detailed, and specific information on treatment or screening options and outcomes to aid decision making. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data on several evaluation criteria. Results were pooled by using weighted mean differences and relative risks. Results. 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the controls, decision aids produced higher knowledge scores (weighted mean difference = 19/100, 95% confidence interval 14 to 25); lower decisional conflict scores (weighted mean difference = -0.3/5, -0.4 to -0.1); more active patient participation in decision making (relative risk = 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 4); and no differences in anxiety, satisfaction with decisions (weighted mean difference = 0.6/100, -3 to 4), or satisfaction with the decision making process (2/100, -3 to 7). Decision aids had a variable effect on decisions. When complex decision aids were compared with simpler versions, they were better at reducing decisional conflict, improved knowledge marginally, but did not affect satisfaction. Conclusions. Decision aids improve knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and stimulate patients to be more active in decision making without increasing their anxiety. Decision aids have little effect on satisfaction and a variable effect on decisions. The effects on outcomes of decisions (persistence with choice, quality of life) remain uncertain.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033581375&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.731

DO - 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.731

M3 - Article

VL - 319

SP - 731

EP - 734

JO - BMJ

JF - BMJ

SN - 0959-8146

IS - 7212

ER -