Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

Richard W. Martin, Stina Brogård Andersen, Mary Ann O’Brien, Paulina Bravo, Tammy Hoffmann, Karina Olling, Heather L. Shepherd, Kathrina Dankl, Dawn Stacey and Karina Dahl Steffensen
Additional contact information
Richard W. Martin: Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Stina Brogård Andersen: Department of Clinical Development, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Mary Ann O’Brien: Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Paulina Bravo: School of Nursing, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
Tammy Hoffmann: Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Karina Olling: Center for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark
Heather L. Shepherd: University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Sydney, Australia
Kathrina Dankl: Design School Kolding, Lab for Social Design, Kolding, Denmark
Dawn Stacey: School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Clinical Epidemiology Program
Karina Dahl Steffensen: Center for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark

Medical Decision Making, 2021, vol. 41, issue 7, 780-800

Abstract: Background The objective of this International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS) review is to update and synthesize theoretical and empirical evidence on how balanced information can be presented and measured in patient decision aids (PtDAs). Methods A multidisciplinary team conducted a scoping review using 2 search strategies in multiple electronic databases evaluating the ways investigators defined and measured the balance of information provided about options in PtDAs. The first strategy combined a search informed by the Cochrane Review of the Effectiveness of Decision Aids with a search on balanced information. The second strategy repeated the search published in the 2013 IPDAS update on balanced presentation. Results Of 2450 unique citations reviewed, the full text of 168 articles was screened for eligibility. Sixty-four articles were included in the review, of which 13 provided definitions of balanced presentation, 8 evaluated mechanisms that may introduce bias, and 42 quantitatively measured balanced with methods consistent with the IPDAS criteria in PtDAs. The revised definition of balanced information is, “Objective, complete, salient, transparent, evidence-informed, and unbiased presentation of text and visual information about the condition and all relevant options (with important elements including the features, benefits, harms and procedures of those options) in a way that does not favor one option over another and enables individuals to focus attention on important elements and process this information.†Conclusions Developers can increase the balance of information in PtDAs by informing their structure and design elements using the IPDAS checklist. We suggest that new PtDA components pertaining to balance be evaluated for cognitive bias with experimental methods as well by objectively evaluating patients’ and content experts’ beliefs from multiple perspectives.

Keywords: patient decision aids; risk communication; balance; framing; bias; choice bracketing; shared decision making; user-centered design (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211021397 (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:41:y:2021:i:7:p:780-800

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211021397

Access Statistics for this article

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