More primary care patients regret health decisions if they experienced decisional conflict in the consultation: a secondary analysis of a multicenter descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to estimate the extent of decision regret among primary care patients and identify risk factors associated with regret. METHODS: Secondary analysis of an observational descriptive study conducted in two Canadian provinces. Unique patient-physician dyads were recruited from 17 primary care clinics and data on patient, physician and consultation characteristics were collected before, during and immediately after consultations, as well as two weeks post-consultation, when patients completed the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). We examined the DRS score distribution and performed ordinal logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of regret. RESULTS: Among 258 unique patient-physicians dyads, mean ± standard deviation of decision regret scores was 11.7 ± 15.1 out of 100. Overall, 43 % of patients reported no regret, 45 % reported mild regret and 12 % reported moderate to strong regret. In multivariate analyses, higher decision regret was strongly associated with increased decisional conflict and less significantly associated with patient age and education, as well with male (vs. female) physicians and residents (vs. teachers). CONCLUSION: After consulting family physicians, most primary care patients experience little decision regret, but some experience more regret if there is decisional conflict. Strategies for reducing decisional conflict in primary care, such as shared decision-making with decision aids, seem warranted.

Extent and Predictors of Decision Regret about Health Care Decisions: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: People often face difficult decisions about their health and may later regret the choice that they made. However, little is known about the extent of decision regret in health care or its predictors. We systematically reviewed evidence about the extent of decision regret and its risk factors among individuals making health decisions. METHODS: The data sources were Medline, Embase, and reverse citation searches in Google Scholar and Web of Science. Studies using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) to measure decision regret among individuals making nonhypothetical health decisions were included. There were no restrictions on study design, setting, or language. We extracted characteristics of included studies, measures of central tendency for DRS scores (0 = no regret, 100 = high regret), and all risk factors from published analyses. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis was performed owing to the heterogeneity of studies. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 372 unique titles, and 59 studies were included. The overall mean DRS score across studies was 16.5, and the median of the mean scores was 14.3 (standard deviation range = 2.2-34.5) (n = 44 studies). The risk factors most frequently reported to be associated with decision regret in multivariate analyses included higher decisional conflict, lower satisfaction with the decision, adverse physical health outcomes, and greater anxiety levels. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of decision regret as assessed with the DRS in nonhypothetical health decisions was often low but reached high levels for some decisions. Several risk factors related to the decision-making process significantly predicted decision regret. Additional research into the psychometrics of the DRS and the relevance of scores for clinicians and patients would increase the validity of decision regret as a patient-reported outcome.

Decision aids that support decisions about prenatal testing for Down syndrome: an environmental scan.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal screening tests for Down syndrome (DS) are routine in many developed countries and new tests are rapidly becoming available. Decisions about prenatal screening are increasingly complex with each successive test, and pregnant women need information about risks and benefits as well as clarity about their values. Decision aids (DAs) can help healthcare providers support women in this decision. Using an environmental scan, we aimed to identify publicly available DAs focusing on prenatal screening/diagnosis for Down syndrome that provide effective support for decision making. METHODS: Data sources searched were the Decision Aids Library Inventory (DALI) of the Ottawa Patient Decision Aids Research Group at the Ottawa Health Research Institute; Google searches on the internet; professional organizations, academic institutions and other experts in the field; and references in existing systematic reviews on DAs. Eligible DAs targeted pregnant women, focused on prenatal screening and/or diagnosis, applied to tests for fetal abnormalities or aneuploidies, and were in French, English, Spanish or Portuguese. Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible DAs and extracted characteristics including the presence of practical decision support tools and features to aid comprehension. They then performed quality assessment using the 16 minimum standards established by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDASi v4.0). RESULTS: Of 543 potentially eligible DAs (512 in DALI, 27 from experts, and four on the internet), 23 were eligible and 20 were available for data extraction. DAs were developed from 1996 to 2013 in six countries (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and France). Five DAs were for prenatal screening, three for prenatal diagnosis and 12 for both). Eight contained values clarification methods (personal worksheets). The 20 DAs scored a median of 10/16 (range 6-15) on the 16 IPDAS minimum standards. DISCUSSION: None of the 20 included DAs met all 16 IPDAS minimum standards, and few included practical decision support tools or aids to comprehension. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate there is a need for DAs that effectively support decision making regarding prenatal testing for Down syndrome, especially in light of the recently available non-invasive prenatal screening tests.