IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i5p619-625.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Decision Aids to Support Clinical Decision Making: Evaluating the Decision or the Outcomes of the Decision

Author

Listed:
  • Kirsten McCaffery

    (School of Public Health, Univer- sity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, kirstenm@health.usyd.edu.au)

  • Les Irwig

    (School of Public Health, Univer- sity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia)

  • Patrick Bossuyt

    (Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

Abstract

Decision aids (DAs) are tools to support patients make informed health decisions with their practitioner. They aim to improve patient knowledge of options, incorporate patient preferences and values, and increase patient involvement in health decision making. Increasingly, the debate about DAs concerns how they should be implemented in practice, with the view that DAs are superior to usual clinical care in facilitating health decisions. The authors challenge this view and suggest that DA research has focused on measures of decision process, leaving the effects on the outcome of the decision relatively unknown. It is still unclear in which conditions DAs are better for patient health and well-being than clinician-led decisions. The authors present a new randomized design to examine the effects of DA-supported patient choice on patient-centered outcomes to identify where DAs are best implemented in clinical practice. In this design, patients are randomized to 1 of 4 arms: intervention A, intervention B, choice of either intervention supported by a clinician, or choice of either intervention supported by a decision aid. Health and quality of life measured over the long term are presented as the primary outcomes. The authors propose that this design will allow the proper assessment of different modes of decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirsten McCaffery & Les Irwig & Patrick Bossuyt, 2007. "Patient Decision Aids to Support Clinical Decision Making: Evaluating the Decision or the Outcomes of the Decision," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 619-625, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:5:p:619-625
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07306787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07306787
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07306787?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    2. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1999. "Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 651-661, September.
    3. Janevic, Mary R. & Janz, Nancy K. & Dodge, Julia A. & Lin, Xihong & Pan, Wenqin & Sinco, Brandy R. & Clark, Noreen M., 2003. "The role of choice in health education intervention trials: a review and case study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1581-1594, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:2:p:141-146 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Victoria A. Shaffer & Lukas Hulsey, 2009. "Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(2), pages 141-146, March.
    3. Anandhi Vivekanandan Dhukaram & Chris Baber, 2016. "A Systematic Approach for Developing Decision Aids: From Cognitive Work Analysis to Prototype Design and Development," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 79-100, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    2. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    3. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    4. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    5. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    6. Shosh Shahrabani & Amiram Gafni & Uri Ben-Zion, 2008. "Low Flu Shot Rates Puzzle—Some Plausible Behavioral Explanations," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 66-72, March.
    7. Barnett, Erin R. & Boucher, Elizabeth A. & Neubacher, Katrin & Carpenter-Song, Elizabeth A., 2016. "Decision-making around psychotropic medications for children in foster care: Perspectives from foster parents," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 206-213.
    8. Peek, Monica E. & Odoms-Young, Angela & Quinn, Michael T. & Gorawara-Bhat, Rita & Wilson, Shannon C. & Chin, Marshall H., 2010. "Race and shared decision-making: Perspectives of African-Americans with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-9, July.
    9. Krystina Lewis & Dawn Stacey & Dan Matlock, 2014. "Making Decisions About Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators from Implantation to End of Life: An Integrative Review of Patients’ Perspectives," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 243-260, September.
    10. May, Carl, 2013. "Agency and implementation: Understanding the embedding of healthcare innovations in practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-33.
    11. Entwistle, Vikki & Williams, Brian & Skea, Zoe & MacLennan, Graeme & Bhattacharya, Siladitya, 2006. "Which surgical decisions should patients participate in and how? Reflections on women's recollections of discussions about variants of hysterectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 499-509, January.
    12. Glory Apantaku & Magda Aguiar & K. Julia Kaal & Patrick J. McDonald & Mary B. Connolly & Viorica Hrincu & Judy Illes & Mark Harrison, 2022. "Understanding Attributes that Influence Physician and Caregiver Decisions About Neurotechnology for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Formative Qualitative Study to Support the Development of a Dis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 219-232, March.
    13. Christoph Engel & Werner Gueth, 2018. "Modeling a satisficing judge," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(2), pages 220-246, May.
    14. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    15. Hardman, Doug & Geraghty, Adam W.A. & Lown, Mark & Bishop, Felicity L., 2020. "Subjunctive medicine: Enacting efficacy in general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    16. Moss, Jennifer L. & Reiter, Paul L. & Rimer, Barbara K. & Brewer, Noel T., 2016. "Collaborative patient-provider communication and uptake of adolescent vaccines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 100-107.
    17. Paton, Alexis & Armstrong, Natalie & Smith, Lucy & Lotto, Robyn, 2020. "Parents’ decision-making following diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly in pregnancy: Practical, theoretical and ethical tensions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    18. France Légaré & Stéphane Turcotte & Dawn Stacey & Stéphane Ratté & Jennifer Kryworuchko & Ian Graham, 2012. "Patients’ Perceptions of Sharing in Decisions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, March.
    19. Bugge, Carol & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Watt, Ian S., 2006. "The significance for decision-making of information that is not exchanged by patients and health professionals during consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2065-2078, October.
    20. Budych, Karolina & Helms, Thomas M. & Schultz, Carsten, 2012. "How do patients with rare diseases experience the medical encounter? Exploring role behavior and its impact on patient–physician interaction," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 154-164.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:5:p:619-625. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.