Author
Listed:
- Nida Gizem Yılmaz
(Department of Communication Science, Amsterdam School of Communication Research/ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)
- Arwen H. Pieterse
(Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands)
- Danielle R. M. Timmermans
(Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)
- Annemarie Becker
(Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)
- Birgit Witte-Lissenberg
(Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
- Olga C. Damman
(Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)
Abstract
Background Evidence is lacking on the most effective values clarification methods (VCMs) in patient decision aids (PtDAs). We tested the effects of an adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA)–based VCM compared with a ranking-based VCM and no VCM on several decision-related outcomes, with the decisional conflict and its subscale “perceived values clarity†as primary outcomes. Design Online experimental study with 3 conditions: no VCM versus ranking-based VCM versus ACA -based VCM ( N = 282; M age = 63.11 y, s = 12.12), with the latter 2 conditions including attributes important for a lung cancer treatment decision. We assessed 1) decisional conflict, 2) perceived values clarity (decisional conflict subscale), 3) perceived cognitive load, 4) anticipated regret, 5) ambivalence, 6) preparedness for decision making, 7) hypothetical treatment preference, and 8) values congruence (proxy). We performed analysis of covariance and linear regression. Age and level of deliberation were included as potential moderators, and we controlled for subjective numeracy (covariate). We exploratively tested the moderating effects of subjective numeracy and health literacy (without covariates). Results We found no significant effect of type of VCM on overall decisional conflict or perceived values clarity. Age had a moderating effect: in younger participants, no VCM (v. ranking-based VCM) led to more values clarity, while in older participants, a ranking-based VCM (v. no VCM) led to more values clarity. Completing the ACA-based VCM, compared with no VCM, resulted in more values congruence. Limitations The hypothetical choice situation might have induced lower levels of cognitive/affective involvement in the decision. Conclusions This study found mixed effects of an ACA-based VCM. It did not decrease decisional conflict or increase perceived values clarity, yet it did improve values congruence. Implications Completion of an ACA-based VCM in a PtDA may increase values congruence. Highlights An adaptive conjoint analysis or a ranking-based values clarification method did not decrease analog patients’ decisional conflict nor did it increase their perceived values clarity. In younger participants, no VCM (v. ranking-based VCM) led to more values clarity, while in older participants, a ranking-based VCM (v. no VCM) led to more values clarity. An adaptive conjoint analysis task for values clarification resulted in more values congruence.
Suggested Citation
Nida Gizem Yılmaz & Arwen H. Pieterse & Danielle R. M. Timmermans & Annemarie Becker & Birgit Witte-Lissenberg & Olga C. Damman, 2025.
"Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis–Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congr,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(1), pages 109-123, January.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:1:p:109-123
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241298630
Download full text from publisher
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:45:y:2025:i:1:p:109-123. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.