Valerie Fiset

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

Abstract 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.

Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective. To describe the extent to which patient decision aids (PtDAs) meet effectiveness standards of the International Patient Decision Aids Collaboration (IPDAS). Data sources. Five electronic databases (to July 2006) and personal contacts (to December 2006). Results. Among 55 randomized controlled trials, 38 (69%) used at least 1 measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion. Measures of decision quality were knowledge scores (27 trials), accurate risk perceptions (12 trials), and value congruence with the chosen option (3 trials). PtDAs improved knowledge scores relative to usual care (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 15.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.7 to 18.7); detailed PtDAs were somewhat more effective than simpler PtDAs (WMD = 4.6%, 95% CI = 3.0 to 6.2). PtDAs with probabilities improved accurate risk perceptions relative to those without probabilities (relative risk = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.4 to 1.9). Relative to simpler PtDAs, detailed PtDAs improved value congruence with the chosen option. Only 2 of 6 IPDAS decision process criteria were measured: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials). PtDAs improved these process measures relative to usual care (feeling uninformed WMD = —8.4, 95% CI = —11.9 to —4.8; unclear values WMD = —6.3, 95% CI = —10.0 to —2.7). There was no difference in process measures when detailed and simple PtDAs were compared. Conclusions. PtDAs improve decision quality and the decision processs measures of feeling informed and clear about values; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Several IPDAS decision process measures have not been used. Future trials need to use a minimum data set of IPDAS evaluation measures. The degree of detail PtDAs require for positive effects on IPDAS criteria should be explored.

Development and evaluation of a decision aid for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer.

Although guidelines for treating stage IV non‐small cell lung cancer suggest that the patient’s values should be considered in decision‐making, there are no practical tools available to assist them with their decision‐making.

Using interprofessional simulation to improve collaborative competences for nursing, physiotherapy, and respiratory therapy students

ABSTRACT Within the care of people living with respiratory conditions, nursing, physiotherapy, and respiratory therapy healthcare professionals routinely work in interprofessional teams. To help students prepare for their future professional roles, there is a need for them to be involved in interprofessional education. The purpose of this project was to compare two different methods of patient simulation in improving interprofessional competencies for students in nursing, physiotherapy, and respiratory therapy programmes. The Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative competencies of communication, collaboration, conflict resolution patient/family-centred care, roles and responsibilities, and team functioning were measured. Using a quasi-experimental pre-post intervention approach two different interprofessional workshops were compared: the combination of standardised and simulated patients, and exclusively standardised patients. Students from nursing, physiotherapy, and respiratory therapy programmes worked together in these simulation-based activities to plan and implement care for a patient with a respiratory condition. Key results were that participants in both years improved in their self-reported interprofessional competencies as measured by the Interprofessional Collaborative Competencies Attainment Survey (ICCAS). Participants indicated that they found their interprofessional teams did well with communication and collaboration. But the participants felt they could have better involved the patients and their family members in the patient’s care. Regardless of method of patient simulation used, mannequin or standardised patients, students found the experience beneficial and appreciated the opportunity to better understand the roles of other healthcare professionals in working together to help patients living with respiratory conditions.