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 Congruence

Nida Gizem Yılmaz, Arwen H. Pieterse, Danielle R. M. Timmermans, Annemarie Becker, Birgit Witte-Lissenberg and Olga C. Damman
Additional contact information
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

Medical Decision Making, 2025, vol. 45, issue 1, 109-123

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.

Keywords: values clarification methods; conjoint analysis; patient decision aids; decisional conflict; informed decision-making (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241298630 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:1:p:109-123

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241298630

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().