Patient decision aids for aortic stenosis and chronic coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author:

Harris Emma1ORCID,Benham Alex2ORCID,Stephenson John2ORCID,Conway Dwayne3ORCID,Chong Aun-Yeong4ORCID,Curtis Helen5ORCID,Astin Felicity1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care, Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies, The Open University , Walton Hall, Kents Hill, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA , UK

2. School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield , Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH , UK

3. Department of Cardiology, Chesterman Wing, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Sheffield S5 7AU , UK

4. Department of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute , 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4W7 , Canada

5. The Library and Knowledge Service, Calderdale Royal Hospital, Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust , Halifax HX3 0PW , UK

Abstract

Abstract Aims Shared decision-making is recommended for patients considering treatment options for severe aortic stenosis (AS) and chronic coronary artery disease (CAD). This review aims to systematically identify and assess patient decision aids (PtDAs) for chronic CAD and AS and evaluate the international evidence on their effectiveness for improving the quality of decision-making. Methods and results Five databases (Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycInfo), clinical trial registers, and 30 PtDA repositories/websites were searched from 2006 to March 2023. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessments were completed independently by multiple reviewers. Meta-analyses were conducted using Stata statistical software. Eleven AS and 10 CAD PtDAs were identified; seven were less than 5 years old. Over half of the PtDAs were web based and the remainder paper based. One AS and two CAD PtDAs fully/partially achieved international PtDA quality criteria. Ten studies were included in the review; four reported on the development/evaluation of AS PtDAs and six on CAD PtDAs. Most studies were conducted in the USA with White, well-educated, English-speaking participants. No studies fulfilled all quality criteria for reporting PtDA development and evaluation. Meta-analyses found that PtDAs significantly increased patient knowledge compared with ‘usual care’ (mean difference: 0.620; 95% confidence interval 0.396–0.845, P < 0.001) but did not change decisional conflict. Conclusion Patients who use PtDAs when considering treatments for AS or chronic CAD are likely to be better informed than those who do not. Existing PtDAs may not meet the needs of people with low health literacy levels as they are rarely involved in their development. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42021264700.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Advanced and Specialized Nursing,Medical–Surgical Nursing,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

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