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

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 < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ2 = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ2 = 6.08, P = 0.05). LIMITATIONS: Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

How often do both core competencies of shared decision making occur in family medicine teaching clinics?

OBJECTIVE: To assess how often risk communication and values clarification occur in routine family medicine practice and to explore factors associated with their occurrence. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative cross-sectional study. SETTING: Five university-affiliated family medicine teaching clinics across Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-one health professionals (55% physicians, 35% residents, 10% nurses or dietitians) and 238 patients (76% women; age range 16 to 82 years old). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The presence or absence of risk communication and values clarification during visits in which decisions were made was determined. Factors associated with the primary outcome (both competencies together) were identified. The OPTION5 (observing patient involvement in decision making) instrument was used to validate the dichotomous outcome. RESULTS: The presence of risk communication and values clarification during visits was associated with OPTION5 scores (area under the curve of 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86, P < .001). Both core competencies of shared decision making occurred in 150 of 238 (63%) visits (95% CI 54% to 70%). Such an occurrence was more likely when the visit included discussion about beginning something new, treatment options, or postponing a decision, as well as when health professionals preferred a collaborative decision-making style and when the visit included more decisions or was longer. Alone, risk communication occurred in 203 of 238 (85%) visits (95% CI 82% to 96%) and values clarification in 162 of 238 (68%) visits (95% CI 61% to 75%). CONCLUSION: Health professionals in family medicine are making an effort to engage patients in shared decision making in routine daily practice, especially when there is time to do so. The greatest potential for improvement might lie in values clarification; that is, discussing what matters to patients and families.

User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Providing patient-centered care requires that patients partner in their personal health-care decisions to the full extent desired. Patient decision aids facilitate processes of shared decision-making between patients and their clinicians by presenting relevant scientific information in balanced, understandable ways, helping clarify patients' goals, and guiding decision-making processes. Although international standards stipulate that patients and clinicians should be involved in decision aid development, little is known about how such involvement currently occurs, let alone best practices. This systematic review consisting of three interlinked subreviews seeks to describe current practices of user involvement in the development of patient decision aids, compare these to practices of user-centered design, and identify promising strategies. METHODS/DESIGN: A research team that includes patient and clinician representatives, decision aid developers, and systematic review method experts will guide this review according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA reporting guidelines. A medical librarian will hand search key references and use a peer-reviewed search strategy to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the ACM library, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. We will identify articles across all languages and years describing the development or evaluation of a patient decision aid, or the application of user-centered design or human-centered design to tools intended for patient use. Two independent reviewers will assess article eligibility and extract data into a matrix using a structured pilot-tested form based on a conceptual framework of user-centered design. We will synthesize evidence to describe how research teams have included users in their development process and compare these practices to user-centered design methods. If data permit, we will develop a measure of the user-centeredness of development processes and identify practices that are likely to be optimal. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide evidence of current practices to inform approaches for involving patients and other stakeholders in the development of patient decision aids. We anticipate that the results will help move towards the establishment of best practices for the development of patient-centered tools and, in turn, help improve the experiences of people who face difficult health decisions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013241.

The Communication AssessmenT Checklist in Health (CATCH): a tool for assessing the quality of printed educational materials for clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: There is little guidance available on strategies to improve the communication quality of printed educational materials (PEMs) for clinicians. The purposes of this study were to conceptualize PEM communication quality, develop a checklist based on this conceptualization, and validate the checklist with a selection of PEMs. METHODS: From a literature review of the strategies influencing communication quality, we generated a conceptual map and developed the Communication AssessmenT Checklist in Health (CATCH) consisting of 55 items nested in 12 concepts. Two raters independently applied CATCH to 45 PEMs evaluated in the studies included in a Cochrane systematic review. From these results, we conducted an item analysis and assessed content validity of CATCH using a hierarchical cluster analysis to explore the extent to which our CATCH operationalization truly represented the communication quality concepts. RESULTS: Some concepts were better covered in the studied PEMs, whereas others were not covered consistently. We observed 3 contrasting PEM clusters. A first cluster (n = 22) was characterized by longer PEMs and comprised mostly high-impact peer-reviewed scientific articles or clinical practice guidelines. A second cluster (n = 22) consisted of PEMs shorter than 4 pages that used special fonts, color, pictures, and graphics. A third cluster consisted of a single brief PEM. DISCUSSION: With CATCH it is possible to categorize and understand the mechanisms that can trigger a change in behavior in health care providers. Additional research is needed to validate CATCH before it can be recommended for use.