Biomedical subjects

J Tetroe

Publications and source records attributed to J Tetroe.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids are interventions designed to help people make specific and deliberative choices among options (including status quo) by providing (at a minimum) information on the options and outcomes relevant to a person's health status. A systematic review is needed to summarize what is known about their efficacy. OBJECTIVES: 1. To create an inventory of existing decision aids. 2. To conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of decision aids aimed at improving people's decision making and outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Aidsline, Cancerlit, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. In addition, individuals known to be active in the field of decision support were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: We screened titles and abstracts for all interventions providing structured, detailed, and specific information on treatment or screening options and outcomes to aid decision making. Information about the decision aids was compiled in an inventory and those evaluated in a randomized controlled trial were reviewed in detail. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using Cochrane review methods, two reviewers independently screened and extracted data on several evaluation criteria. Results of randomized trials were pooled using weighted mean differences and relative risks with all data analysed using a random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-seven decision aids were identified. Twenty-three of them had been evaluated in 24 randomized controlled trials. Among the trials comparing decision aids to usual care interventions, decision aids performed better in terms of: a) greater knowledge of options in seven of seven studies (weighted mean difference (WMD = 19 out of 100, 95% confidence interval (CI): 13,25); b) more realistic expectations in two of three studies (RR=1.48 95%CI 1.02, 2.14); c) lower decisional conflict related to feeling informed in three of three studies (WMD = -9.0 of 100 95%CI: -15, -3); d) reducing the proportion of people who were passive in decision making in three of four studies (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.5, 0.8). When simpler decision aids were compared to more detailed ones, the relative improvement was significant in: a) improved knowledge in two of seven studies (WMD = 4 out of 100, 95% CI: 2, 5); b) realistic expectations in two of two studies (relative risk (RR ranged from 1.5 95%CI: 1.3,1.8); and c) decisional conflict in one of two studies (WMD= -4 95% CI -8,-0.2). There was a consistent trend for decision aids to do no better than comparison interventions in affecting: satisfaction with the decision in five of six studies, satisfaction with the decision making process in four of five studies, and anxiety in four of five studies. Decision aids had a variable effect on which screening or treatment options were selected. Exposure to decision aids relative to controls resulted in a consistent non-significant trend toward reduced preference for major surgery over conservative options by 21 to 42 per cent in five of five studies; however, they had no impact on circumcision in two of two studies. For colon and prostate cancer screening choices, the results were inconsistent. Two studies have shown no impact on persistence with chosen option and few studies have shown significant benefits on general health outcomes (two of three studies), or disease-specific health outcomes (one of four studies). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The number of decision aids is expanding, but there is considerable overlap in some areas leaving gaps in others. Trials of decision aids indicate that they are superior to usual care interventions in improving knowledge and realistic expectations of the benefits and harms of options; reducing passivity in decision making; and lowering decisional conflict stemming from feeling uninformed. When simpler versions of decision aids are compared to more detailed aids, the differences in knowledge are marginal but there are other benefits in terms of creating realistic expectations and in reducing decisional conflict. To date, decision aids have had little effect on anxiety or satisfaction with the decision making process or satisfaction with the decision. Their effects on choices vary with the decision. The effects on persistence with chosen therapies and health outcomes require further evaluation. The essential elements in decision aids for different groups and different types of decisions need to be established. Consensus needs to be reached regarding standards for developing and evaluating decision aids.

Decision Support Techniques↗

PubMed2001

A decision aid for long-term tube feeding in cognitively impaired older persons.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and evaluation of a decision aid for long-term tube feeding in cognitively impaired older people. DESIGN: Before-and-after study. SETTING: Acute care hospitals in Ottawa, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Substitute decision makers for 15 cognitively impaired inpatients 65 years and older being considered for placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. MEASUREMENTS: Questionnaires were used to compare the substitute decision makers' knowledge, decisional conflict, and predisposition regarding feeding tube placement before and after exposure to the decision aid. The acceptability of the decision aid was also assessed. RESULTS: Substitute decision makers significantly increased their knowledge (P = .004) and decreased their decisional conflict (P = .004) regarding long-term tube feeding after using the decision aid. The impact of the decision aid on predisposition toward the intervention was greatest for those who were unsure of their preferences at baseline. All substitute decision makers found the decision aid helpful and acceptable despite very difficult and emotional circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid improves the decision-making process for long-term tube feeding in cognitively impaired older patients by decreasing decisional conflict and by promoting decisions that are informed and consistent with personal values. There are particular challenges for developing and evaluating these tools in the context of end-of-life decisions.

Aged↗

PubMed2001

The psychometric properties of patient preferences in osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoporosis is a chronic disease manifested by wrist, vertebral, and hip fractures that results in significant morbidity and burden to society. About 30% of postmenopausal women have osteoporosis according to the WHO criteria. Women with one vertebral fracture have a 4-fold increased risk of a subsequent fracture. The goal of treatment is to prevent fractures and improve quality of life. Preferences or utilities are now recommended for incorporating quality of life into evaluations of the cost effectiveness of new therapeutic interventions. We evaluated the psychometric properties of preference based measures in osteoporosis. METHODS: Preference scenarios were constructed with a health state classification system. The reliability and validity of the feeling thermometer and the standard gamble was assessed by interviewing 42 women from 4 different patient groups. The sensitivity to change of the feeling thermometer and standard gamble was compared with the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and SF-36. All subgroups were reassessed about 2 months after their first interview. RESULTS: Preference measurement was feasible in women of different age groups. The reliability coefficients for health states ranged from 0.65 to 0.87. The preference scores for the marker states demonstrated content validity. Convergent validity of the feeling thermometer was supported by a significant correlation with the HUI2 (r = 0.38, p < 0.05) and the physical health summary of the SF-36 (r = 0.56, p < 0.005). The standard gamble did not correlate with the HUI2 (r = 0.15) or the feeling thermometer (r = 0.09), but correlated with 2 domains of the SF-36. The preference measures were sensitive to change, with the efficiency scores ranging from 0.78 to 1.0. CONCLUSION: Preference measurements in the evaluation of osteoporosis are feasible. The feeling thermometer and standard gamble appear to be related to different aspects of health related quality of life. Both instruments were sensitive to change over a 2 month period.

Aged↗

PubMed2001

[Making a decision about hormone replacement therapy. A randomized controlled trial].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a decision-making aid with an information document from the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) with regard to decisions about hormone replacement therapy (HRT). DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Quebec city region. PARTICIPANTS: Menopausal Francophone women 45 to 69 years old. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were given a manual and an audiocassette describing a six-step approach to making a decision about HRT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Amount of anxiety over the decision (main outcome), general knowledge of the risks and benefits of HRT, personal expectations and values concerning these risks and benefits, and women's views on HRT. RESULTS: Anxiety levels were significantly reduced in both groups, but the difference between the effectiveness of the two interventions was not significant (P = .77). Percentages of women whose general knowledge increased and of women with realistic expectations were significantly higher in the experimental group (P < .003 and P < .0001, respectively). Congruence between personal values and decisions about HRT increased significantly more in the experimental group (P < or = .003). CONCLUSION: The six-step approach to decision making was more helpful than the SOGC's information document in increasing subjects' knowledge of the risks and benefits of HRT, in creating more realistic expectations of HRT, and in increasing the congruence between subjects' personal values and their decisions on HRT.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of randomised trials of patient decision aids in improving decision making and outcomes. DESIGN: We included randomised trials of interventions providing structured, detailed, and specific information on treatment or screening options and outcomes to aid decision making. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data on several evaluation criteria. Results were pooled by using weighted mean differences and relative risks. RESULTS: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the controls, decision aids produced higher knowledge scores (weighted mean difference=19/100, 95% confidence interval 14 to 25); lower decisional conflict scores (weighted mean difference=-0.3/5, -0.4 to -0.1); more active patient participation in decision making (relative risk = 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1. 3 to 4); and no differences in anxiety, satisfaction with decisions (weighted mean difference=0.6/100, -3 to 4), or satisfaction with the decision making process (2/100,-3 to 7). Decision aids had a variable effect on decisions. When complex decision aids were compared with simpler versions, they were better at reducing decisional conflict, improved knowledge marginally, but did not affect satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids improve knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and stimulate patients to be more active in decision making without increasing their anxiety. Decision aids have little effect on satisfaction and a variable effect on decisions. The effects on outcomes of decisions (persistence with choice, quality of life) remain uncertain.

Choice Behavior↗