Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Mar;10(1):46-61.
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00420.x.

A systematic review of information in decision aids

Affiliations

A systematic review of information in decision aids

Deb Feldman-Stewart et al. Health Expect. 2007 Mar.

Abstract

Objective: We completed a systematic review of information reported as included in decision aids (DAs) for adult patients, to determine if it is complete, balanced and accurate.

Search strategy: DAs were identified using the Cochrane Database of DAs and searches of four electronic databases using the terms: 'decision aid'; shared decision making' and 'patients'; 'multimedia or leaflets or pamphlets or videos and patients and decision making'. Additionally, publications reporting DA development and actual DAs that were reported as publicly available on the Internet were consulted. Publications were included up to May 2006.

Data extraction: Data were extracted on the following variables: external groups consulted in development of the DA, type of study used, categories of information, inclusion of probabilities, use of citation lists and inclusion of patient experiences.

Main results: 68 treatment DAs and 30 screening DAs were identified. 17% of treatment DAs and 47% of screening DAs did not report any external consultation and, of those that did, DA producers tended to rely more heavily on medical experts than on patients' guidance. Content evaluations showed that (i) treatment DAs frequently omit describing the procedure(s) involved in treatment options and (ii) screening DAs frequently focus on false positives but not false negatives. About 1/2 treatment DAs reported probabilities with a greater emphasis on potential benefits than harms. Similarly, screening DAs were more likely to provide false-positive than false-negative rates.

Conclusions: The review led us to be concerned about completeness, balance and accuracy of information included in DAs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bekker H, Thornton JG, Airey CM et al. Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 1999; 3: 1–156. - PubMed
    1. O'Connor AM. A call to standardize measures for judging the efficacy of interventions to aid patients’ decision making. Medical Decision Making, 1999; 19: 504–505. - PubMed
    1. Barry MJ. Health decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in office practice. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2002; 136: 127–135. - PubMed
    1. O'Connor AM, Graham ID. Implementing shared decision making in diverse health care systems: the role of patient decision aids. Patient Education and Counseling, 2005; 57: 247–249. - PubMed
    1. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1986. - PubMed

Publication types