Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

Author:

Martin Richard W.1ORCID,Brogård Andersen Stina234,O’Brien Mary Ann5,Bravo Paulina67,Hoffmann Tammy8ORCID,Olling Karina3,Shepherd Heather L.9,Dankl Kathrina10,Stacey Dawn1112ORCID,Dahl Steffensen Karina3413

Affiliation:

1. Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

2. Department of Clinical Development, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

3. Center for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark

4. Department of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

5. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

6. School of Nursing, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

7. Millennium Nucleus Center Authority and Power Asymmetries

8. Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia

9. University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Sydney, Australia

10. Design School Kolding, Lab for Social Design, Kolding, Denmark

11. School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Clinical Epidemiology Program

12. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

13. Department of Clinical Oncology, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark

Abstract

Background The objective of this International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS) review is to update and synthesize theoretical and empirical evidence on how balanced information can be presented and measured in patient decision aids (PtDAs). Methods A multidisciplinary team conducted a scoping review using 2 search strategies in multiple electronic databases evaluating the ways investigators defined and measured the balance of information provided about options in PtDAs. The first strategy combined a search informed by the Cochrane Review of the Effectiveness of Decision Aids with a search on balanced information. The second strategy repeated the search published in the 2013 IPDAS update on balanced presentation. Results Of 2450 unique citations reviewed, the full text of 168 articles was screened for eligibility. Sixty-four articles were included in the review, of which 13 provided definitions of balanced presentation, 8 evaluated mechanisms that may introduce bias, and 42 quantitatively measured balanced with methods consistent with the IPDAS criteria in PtDAs. The revised definition of balanced information is, “Objective, complete, salient, transparent, evidence-informed, and unbiased presentation of text and visual information about the condition and all relevant options (with important elements including the features, benefits, harms and procedures of those options) in a way that does not favor one option over another and enables individuals to focus attention on important elements and process this information.” Conclusions Developers can increase the balance of information in PtDAs by informing their structure and design elements using the IPDAS checklist. We suggest that new PtDA components pertaining to balance be evaluated for cognitive bias with experimental methods as well by objectively evaluating patients’ and content experts’ beliefs from multiple perspectives.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

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