Do patient decision aids help people who are facing decisions about solid organ transplantation? A systematic review

Author:

Irish Georgina L.123ORCID,Weightman Alison12,Hersch Jolyn4,Coates P. Toby13,Clayton Philip A123

Affiliation:

1. Faculty of Health and Medical Science University of Adelaide Adelaide Australia

2. Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) Adelaide Australia

3. Central and Northern Adelaide Renal and Transplantation Service Royal Adelaide Hospital Adelaide Australia

4. School of Public Health Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of Sydney Sydney Australia

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundDecisions about solid organ transplantation are complex. Patient decision aids (PDAs) enhance traditional education, by improving knowledge and supporting patients to align their values with treatments. There are increasing numbers of transplantation PDAs, however, it is unclear whether these are effective. We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the impact of PDA use in transplantation.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases from database inception to October 26, 2020. We included primary studies of solid organ transplantation PDAs defined by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. All comparators and reported outcomes were included. Mean difference in knowledge (before vs. after) was standardized on a 100‐point scale. Pooled‐effect for PDAs was calculated and compared to the standard of care for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta‐analyzed using random effects. Analysis of all other outcomes was limited due to heterogeneity (PROSPERO registration, CRD42020215940).ResultsSeven thousand four hundred and sixty‐three studies were screened, 163 underwent full‐text review, and 15 studies with 4278 participants were included. Nine studies were RCTs. Seven RCTs assessed knowledge; all demonstrated increased knowledge with PDA use (mean difference, 8.01;95%CI 4.69–11.34, p < .00001). There were many other outcomes, including behavior and acceptability, but these were too heterogenous and infrequently assessed for meaningful synthesis.ConclusionsThis review found that PDAs increase knowledge compared to standard education, though the effect size is small. PDAs are mostly considered acceptable; however, it is difficult to determine whether they improve other decision‐making components due to the limited evidence about non‐knowledge‐based outcomes.

Funder

National Health and Medical Research Council

Royal Australasian College of Physicians

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Transplantation

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions;Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews;2024-01-29

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3