Parental decision making involvement and decisional conflict: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Decisional conflict is a state of uncertainty about the best treatment option among competing alternatives and is common among adult patients who are inadequately involved in the health decision making process. In pediatrics, research shows that many parents are insufficiently involved in decisions about their child's health. However, little is known about parents' experience of decisional conflict. We explored parents' perceived decision making involvement and its association with parents' decisional conflict. METHOD: We conducted a descriptive survey study in a pediatric tertiary care hospital. Our survey was guided by validated decisional conflict screening items (i.e., the SURE test). We administered the survey to eligible parents after an ambulatory care or emergency department consultation for their child. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-nine respondents were included in the analysis. Forty-eight percent of parents reported not being offered treatment options and 23% screened positive for decisional conflict. Parents who reported being offered options experienced less decisional conflict than parents who reported not being offered options (5% vs. 42%, p < 0.001). Further, parents with options were more likely to: feel sure about the decision (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.15); understand the information (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.63-2.28); be clear about the risks and benefits (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.20); and, have sufficient support and advice to make a choice (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.11). CONCLUSION: Many parents in our sample experienced decisional conflict after their clinical consultation. Involving parents in the decision making process might reduce their risk of decisional conflict. Evidence based interventions that support parent decision making involvement, such as shared decision making, should be evaluated and implemented in pediatrics as a strategy to reduce parents' decisional conflict.

Translating Evidence to Facilitate Shared Decision Making: Development and Usability of a Consult Decision Aid Prototype.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to translate evidence from Cochrane Reviews into a format that can be used to facilitate shared decision making during the consultation, namely patient decision aids. METHODS: A systematic development process (a) established a stakeholder committee; (b) developed a prototype according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards; (c) applied the prototype to a Cochrane Review and used an interview-guided survey to evaluate acceptability/usability; (d) created 12 consult decision aids; and (e) used a Delphi process to reach consensus on considerations for creating a consult decision aid. RESULTS: The 1-page prototype includes (a) a title specifying the decision; (b) information on the health condition, options, benefits/harms with probabilities; (c) an explicit values clarification exercise; and (d) questions to screen for decisional conflict. Hyperlinks provide additional information on definitions, probabilities presented graphically, and references. Fourteen Cochrane Consumer Network members and Cochrane Editorial Unit staff participated. Thirteen reported that it would help patient/clinician discussions and were willing to use and/or recommend it. Seven indicated the right amount of information, six not enough, and one too much. Changes to the prototype were more links to definitions, more white space, and details on GRADE evidence ratings. Creating 12 consult decision aids took about 4 h each. We identified ten considerations when selecting Cochrane Reviews for creating consult decision aids. CONCLUSIONS: Using a systematic process, we developed a consult decision aid prototype to be populated with evidence from Cochrane Reviews. It was acceptable and easy to apply. Future studies will evaluate implementation of consult decision aids.

Delivering patient decision aids on the Internet: definitions, theories, current evidence, and emerging research areas.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration identified twelve quality dimensions to guide assessment of patient decision aids. One dimension-the delivery of patient decision aids on the Internet-is relevant when the Internet is used to provide some or all components of a patient decision aid. Building on the original background chapter, this paper provides an updated definition for this dimension, outlines a theoretical rationale, describes current evidence, and discusses emerging research areas. METHODS: An international, multidisciplinary panel of authors examined the relevant theoretical literature and empirical evidence through 2012. RESULTS: The updated definition distinguishes Internet-delivery of patient decision aids from online health information and clinical practice guidelines. Theories in cognitive psychology, decision psychology, communication, and education support the value of Internet features for providing interactive information and deliberative support. Dissemination and implementation theories support Internet-delivery for providing the right information (rapidly updated), to the right person (tailored), at the right time (the appropriate point in the decision making process). Additional efforts are needed to integrate the theoretical rationale and empirical evidence from health technology perspectives, such as consumer health informatics, user experience design, and human-computer interaction. CONCLUSIONS: As of 2012, the updated theoretical rationale and emerging evidence suggest potential benefits to delivering patient decision aids on the Internet. However, additional research is needed to identify best practices and quality metrics for Internet-based development, evaluation, and dissemination, particularly in the areas of interactivity, multimedia components, socially-generated information, and implementation strategies.

Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi).

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development, validation and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to measure the quality of patient decision support technologies (decision aids). DESIGN: Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. SETTING: There has been increasing use of decision support technologies--adjuncts to the discussions clinicians have with patients about difficult decisions. A global interest in developing these interventions exists among both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. It is therefore essential to have internationally accepted standards to assess the quality of their development, process, content, potential bias and method of field testing and evaluation. METHODS: Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five researcher-members of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration worked together to develop the instrument (IPDASi). In the fourth Stage (reliability study), eight raters assessed thirty randomly selected decision support technologies. RESULTS: IPDASi measures quality in 10 dimensions, using 47 items, and provides an overall quality score (scaled from 0 to 100) for each intervention. Overall IPDASi scores ranged from 33 to 82 across the decision support technologies sampled (n = 30), enabling discrimination. The inter-rater intraclass correlation for the overall quality score was 0.80. Correlations of dimension scores with the overall score were all positive (0.31 to 0.68). Cronbach's alpha values for the 8 raters ranged from 0.72 to 0.93. Cronbach's alphas based on the dimension means ranged from 0.50 to 0.81, indicating that the dimensions, although well correlated, measure different aspects of decision support technology quality. A short version (19 items) was also developed that had very similar mean scores to IPDASi and high correlation between short score and overall score 0.87 (CI 0.79 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates that IPDASi has the ability to assess the quality of decision support technologies. The existing IPDASi provides an assessment of the quality of a DST's components and will be used as a tool to provide formative advice to DSTs developers and summative assessments for those who want to compare their tools against an existing benchmark.

Can people find patient decision aids on the Internet?

OBJECTIVE: To determine if people could find patient decision aids (PtDAs) on the Internet using the most popular general search engines. METHODS: We chose five medical conditions for which English language PtDAs were available from at least three different developers. The search engines used were: Google (www.google.com), Yahoo! (www.yahoo.com), and MSN (www.msn.com). For each condition and search engine we ran six searches using a combination of search terms. We coded all non-sponsored Web pages that were linked from the first page of the search results. RESULTS: Most first page results linked to informational Web pages about the condition, only 16% linked to PtDAs. PtDAs were more readily found for the breast cancer surgery decision (our searches found seven of the nine developers). The searches using Yahoo and Google search engines were more likely to find PtDAs. The following combination of search terms: condition, treatment, decision (e.g. breast cancer surgery decision) was most successful across all search engines (29%). CONCLUSION: While some terms and search engines were more successful, few resulted in direct links to PtDAs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Finding PtDAs would be improved with use of standardized labelling, providing patients with specific Web site addresses or access to an independent PtDA clearinghouse.