IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i7p954-959.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are We Improving? Update and Critical Appraisal of the Reporting of Decision Process and Quality Measures in Trials Evaluating Patient Decision Aids

Author

Listed:
  • Logan Trenaman

    (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Vancouver, Canada)

  • Jesse Jansen

    (Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands)

  • Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby

    (Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA)

  • Mirjam Körner

    (Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Medical Faculty, Albert-Ludwigs- University, Freiburg, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)

  • Joanne Lally

    (Population Health Sciences Institute, Baddiley Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK)

  • Daniel Matlock

    (University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
    VA Eastern Colorado Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Denver, CO, USA)

  • Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez

    (Evaluation Unit, Canary Islands Health Service, REDISSEC, Tenerife Spain)

  • Mary Ropka

    (University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA)

  • Christine Stirling

    (School of Nursing, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia)

  • Kathrene Valentine

    (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Ha Vo

    (Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Celia E. Wills

    (Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA)

  • Richard Thomson

    (Population Health Sciences Institute, Baddiley Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK)

  • Karen Sepucha

    (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

Abstract

Background In 2014, a systematic review found large gaps in the quality of reporting of measures used in 86 published trials evaluating the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs). The purpose of this study was to update that review. Methods We examined measures of decision making used in 49 randomized controlled trials included in the 2014 and 2017 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of PtDAs. Data on development of the measures, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability were independently abstracted by 2 paired reviewers. Results Information from 273 measures was abstracted, and 109 of these covered the core domains of decision processes ( n = 55) and decision quality including informed choice/knowledge ( n = 48) and values-choice concordance ( n = 12). Very few studies reported data on the performance and clinical sensibility of measures, with reliability (23%) and validity (6%) being the most common. Studies using new measures were less likely to include information about their psychometric performance compared with previously published measures. Limitations The review was limited to reporting of measures in studies included in the Cochrane review and did not consult prior publications. Conclusion There continues to be very little reported about the development or performance of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PtDAs in published trials. Minimum reporting standards have been published, and efforts to require investigators to use them are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Logan Trenaman & Jesse Jansen & Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby & Mirjam Körner & Joanne Lally & Daniel Matlock & Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez & Mary Ropka & Christine Stirling & Kathrene Valentine & Ha Vo & , 2021. "Are We Improving? Update and Critical Appraisal of the Reporting of Decision Process and Quality Measures in Trials Evaluating Patient Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 954-959, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:7:p:954-959
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211011120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211011120
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211011120?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. Annette M. O'Connor & Peter Tugwell & George A. Wells & Tom Elmslie & Elaine Jolly & Gary Hollingworth & Ruth Mcpherson & Elizabeth Drake & Wilma Hopman & Thomas Mackenzie, 1998. "Randomized Trial of a Portable, Self-administered Decision Aid for Postmenopausal Women Considering Long-term Preventive Hormone Therapy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(3), pages 295-303, August.
    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. 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.

    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. Richard W. Martin & Stina Brogård Andersen & Mary Ann O’Brien & Paulina Bravo & Tammy Hoffmann & Karina Olling & Heather L. Shepherd & Kathrina Dankl & Dawn Stacey & Karina Dahl Steffensen, 2021. "Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 780-800, 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:41:y:2021:i:7:p:954-959. 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.