Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Holly O. Witteman, Ruth Ndjaboue, Gratianne Vaisson, Selma Chipenda Dansokho, Bob Arnold, John F. P. Bridges, Sandrine Comeau, Angela Fagerlin, Teresa Gavaruzzi, Melina Marcoux, Arwen Pieterse, Michael Pignone, Thierry Provencher, Charles Racine, Dean Regier, Charlotte Rochefort-Brihay, Praveen Thokala, Marieke Weernink, Douglas B. White, Celia E. Wills and Jesse Jansen
Additional contact information
Holly O. Witteman: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Ruth Ndjaboue: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Gratianne Vaisson: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Selma Chipenda Dansokho: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Bob Arnold: UPMC Palliative and Supportive Institute, Division of General Internal Medicine, Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
John F. P. Bridges: Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA
Sandrine Comeau: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Angela Fagerlin: Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Teresa Gavaruzzi: Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
Melina Marcoux: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Arwen Pieterse: Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Michael Pignone: Departments of Internal Medicine and Population Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA
Thierry Provencher: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Charles Racine: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Dean Regier: School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Charlotte Rochefort-Brihay: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Praveen Thokala: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Marieke Weernink: Municipal Health Services (GGD), Enschede, The Netherlands
Douglas B. White: Program on Ethics and Decision Making in Critical Illness, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Celia E. Wills: College of Nursing, Center on Healthy Aging, Self-Management and Complex Care, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
Jesse Jansen: Department of Family Medicine/CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Medical Decision Making, 2021, vol. 41, issue 7, 801-820

Abstract: Background Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment. Purpose To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Study Selection We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods. Data Extraction Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation. Data Synthesis Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P

Keywords: decision making; values clarification; shared decision making; preference elicitation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211037946 (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:801-820

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211037946

Access Statistics for this article

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