Are We Improving? Update and Critical Appraisal of the Reporting of Decision Process and Quality Measures in Trials Evaluating Patient Decision Aids

Logan Trenaman, Jesse Jansen, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby, Mirjam Körner, Joanne Lally, Daniel Matlock, Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez, Mary Ropka, Christine Stirling, Kathrene Valentine, Ha Vo, Celia E. Wills, Richard Thomson and Karen Sepucha
Additional contact information
Logan Trenaman: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Jesse Jansen: Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby: Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
Mirjam Körner: Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Medical Faculty, Albert-Ludwigs- University, Freiburg, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany
Joanne Lally: Population Health Sciences Institute, Baddiley Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Daniel Matlock: University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez: Evaluation Unit, Canary Islands Health Service, REDISSEC, Tenerife Spain
Mary Ropka: University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Christine Stirling: School of Nursing, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Kathrene Valentine: Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Ha Vo: Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
Celia E. Wills: Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
Richard Thomson: Population Health Sciences Institute, Baddiley Clark Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Karen Sepucha: Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Medical Decision Making, 2021, vol. 41, issue 7, 954-959

Abstract: Background In 2014, a systematic review found large gaps in the quality of reporting of measures used in 86 published trials evaluating the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs). The purpose of this study was to update that review. Methods We examined measures of decision making used in 49 randomized controlled trials included in the 2014 and 2017 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of PtDAs. Data on development of the measures, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability were independently abstracted by 2 paired reviewers. Results Information from 273 measures was abstracted, and 109 of these covered the core domains of decision processes ( n = 55) and decision quality including informed choice/knowledge ( n = 48) and values-choice concordance ( n = 12). Very few studies reported data on the performance and clinical sensibility of measures, with reliability (23%) and validity (6%) being the most common. Studies using new measures were less likely to include information about their psychometric performance compared with previously published measures. Limitations The review was limited to reporting of measures in studies included in the Cochrane review and did not consult prior publications. Conclusion There continues to be very little reported about the development or performance of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PtDAs in published trials. Minimum reporting standards have been published, and efforts to require investigators to use them are needed.

Keywords: checklist/standards; decision support techniques; patient-centred care; patient decision aids; shared decision making (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211011120 (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:954-959

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211011120

Access Statistics for this article

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