Author
Listed:
- Romy Richter
(Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)
- Jesse Jansen
(Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)
- Josine van der Kraan
(Netherlands Patients Federation, Utrecht, the Netherlands)
- Wais Abbaspoor
(Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)
- Iris Bongaerts
(Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)
- Fleur Pouwels
(Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)
- Celine Vilters
(Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)
- Jany Rademakers
(Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel), Utrecht, the Netherlands)
- Trudy van der Weijden
(Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)
Abstract
Objective Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can support shared decision making. We aimed to explore how inclusive PtDAs are for people with limited health literacy (LHL) by analyzing 1) the understandability of PtDAs using established criteria, 2) how options and probabilities of outcomes are communicated, and 3) the extent to which risk communication (RC) guidelines are followed. Methods In a descriptive document analysis, we analyzed Dutch PtDAs available in 2021 that met the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. We developed and pilot tested a data extraction form based on key RC and health literacy literature. Results Most PtDAs (151/198) met most of the understandability criteria on layout (7–8 out of 8 items) such as font size but not on content aspects (121/198 PtDAs scored 5–7 out of 12 items) such as defining medical terms. Only 31 of 198 PtDAs used a short and simple sentence structure. Most PtDAs presented 2 to 4 treatment options. Many followed RC recommendations such as the use of numerical RC strategies such as percentages or natural frequencies (160/198) and visual formats such as icon arrays (91/198). Only 10 used neutral framing (10/198). When presented, uncertainty was presented verbally (134/198) or in ranges (58/198). Four PtDAs were co-created together with patients with LHL and used only verbal RC or no RC. Conclusion Most PtDAs met most of the understandability criteria on layout, but content aspects and adherence to RC strategies can be improved. Many PtDAs used long sentences and mostly verbal RC and are therefore likely to be inappropriate for patients with LHL. Further research is needed on PtDA characteristics and RC strategies suitable for people with LHL. Highlights Despite meeting most criteria for understandability, many of the Dutch PtDAs use long sentences, which likely impede comprehension for patients with LHL. Most of the Dutch PtDAs follow established recommendations for risk communication, with room for improvement for some strategies such as framing and a clear reference to the time frame. Overall, more research is needed to tailor PtDAs to the needs of people with LHL.
Suggested Citation
Romy Richter & Jesse Jansen & Josine van der Kraan & Wais Abbaspoor & Iris Bongaerts & Fleur Pouwels & Celine Vilters & Jany Rademakers & Trudy van der Weijden, 2025.
"How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(2), pages 143-155, February.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:2:p:143-155
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241302288
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:2:p:143-155. 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.