IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i7p805-815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Patient Decision Aids Used in Clinical Practice after Rigorous Evaluation? A Survey of Trial Authors

Author

Listed:
  • Dawn Stacey

    (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
    University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Victoria Suwalska

    (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
    University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Laura Boland

    (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
    University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Krystina B. Lewis

    (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa , ON, Canada
    University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Justin Presseau

    (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
    University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Richard Thomson

    (Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK)

Abstract

Background. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are effective interventions to support patient involvement in health care decisions, but there is little use in practice. Our study aimed to determine subsequent PtDA use in clinical practice following published randomized controlled trials. Design. A descriptive study using an e-mail-embedded questionnaire survey targeting authors of 133 trials included in Cochrane Reviews of PtDAs (106 authors). We classified PtDA level of use as a) implementation, defined as integrating within care processes; b) dissemination to target users with planned strategies; and c) diffusion, defined as passive, unplanned spread. We conducted content analysis to identify barriers and enablers guided by the Ottawa Model of Research Use. Results. Ninety-eight authors responded (92.5%) on 108 trialed PtDAs. Reported levels of use were implementation ( n = 29; 28%), dissemination to target user(s) ( n = 9; 9%), and diffusion ( n = 7; 7%); 57 (55%) reported no uptake, and 1 had no response (1%). Barriers to use in clinical practice were identified at the level of researchers (e.g., lack of posttrial plan), PtDAs (e.g., outdated, delivery mechanism), clinicians (e.g., disagreed with PtDA use), and practice environment (e.g., infrastructure support; funding). Enablers were online delivery, organizational endorsement (e.g., professional organization, charity, government), and design for and integration into the care process. Limitations. Self-report bias and potential for recall bias. Conclusions. Only 44% of PtDA trial authors indicated some level of subsequent use following their trial. The most commonly reported barriers were lack of funding, outdated PtDAs, and clinician disagreement with PtDA use. To improve subsequent use, researchers should codesign PtDAs with end users to ensure fit with clinical practice and develop an implementation plan. National systems (e.g., platforms, endorsement, funding) can enable use.

Suggested Citation

  • Dawn Stacey & Victoria Suwalska & Laura Boland & Krystina B. Lewis & Justin Presseau & Richard Thomson, 2019. "Are Patient Decision Aids Used in Clinical Practice after Rigorous Evaluation? A Survey of Trial Authors," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(7), pages 805-815, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:7:p:805-815
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19868193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19868193
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19868193?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. Elwyn, Glyn & Burstin, Helen & Barry, Michael J. & Corry, Maureen P. & Durand, Marie Anne & Lessler, Daniel & Saigal, Christopher, 2018. "A proposal for the development of national certification standards for patient decision aids in the US," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(7), pages 703-706.
    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. Holly O. Witteman & Kristin G. Maki & Gratianne Vaisson & Jeanette Finderup & Krystina B. Lewis & Karina Dahl Steffensen & Caroline Beaudoin & Sandrine Comeau & Robert J. Volk, 2021. "Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 736-754, October.

    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. Dawn Stacey & Robert J. Volk, 2021. "The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 729-733, October.

    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:39:y:2019:i:7:p:805-815. 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.