Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author:

Witteman Holly O.123ORCID,Ndjaboue Ruth12ORCID,Vaisson Gratianne13,Dansokho Selma Chipenda1,Arnold Bob4,Bridges John F. P.5,Comeau Sandrine1,Fagerlin Angela6,Gavaruzzi Teresa7,Marcoux Melina1,Pieterse Arwen8ORCID,Pignone Michael9,Provencher Thierry1ORCID,Racine Charles1,Regier Dean10,Rochefort-Brihay Charlotte1,Thokala Praveen11,Weernink Marieke12,White Douglas B.13,Wills Celia E.14,Jansen Jesse15

Affiliation:

1. Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada

2. VITAM Research Centre, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada

3. CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada

4. UPMC Palliative and Supportive Institute, Division of General Internal Medicine, Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

5. Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA

6. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

7. Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

8. Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

9. Departments of Internal Medicine and Population Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

10. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

11. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

12. Municipal Health Services (GGD), Enschede, The Netherlands

13. Program on Ethics and Decision Making in Critical Illness, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

14. College of Nursing, Center on Healthy Aging, Self-Management and Complex Care, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

15. Department of Family Medicine/CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment. Purpose To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Study Selection We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods. Data Extraction Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation. Data Synthesis Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ2 = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ2 = 6.08, P = 0.05). Limitations Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories. Conclusions Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Funder

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

Cited by 37 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

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