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
. 2023 Feb 8;28(2):105-115.
doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyac231.

A Systematic Review of Decision Aids in Hematologic Malignancies: What Are Currently Available and What Are We Missing?

Janice Zhao  1 , Maya Abdallah  2 , Chandrika Sanapala  2 , Erin Watson  3 , Marissa LoCastro  4 , Daniel A Castillo  5 , Daniel Richardson  6 , Thomas W LeBlanc  7 , Kah Poh Loh  1
Affiliations

A Systematic Review of Decision Aids in Hematologic Malignancies: What Are Currently Available and What Are We Missing?

Janice Zhao et al. Oncologist. .

Abstract

Background: Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools designed to facilitate decision-making. In this systematic review, we summarized existing studies on the development and evaluation of PDAs for patients with hematologic malignancies.

Patients and methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched for articles in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included studies, abstracts, and clinical trial protocols available in English involving PDAs for patients age ≥18 diagnosed with a hematologic malignancy and/or their caregivers. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results: Of the 5281 titles/abstracts screened, 15 were included: 1 protocol, 7 abstracts, and 7 full-texts. Six were PDA developmental studies, 6 were pilot studies, and 3 were randomized trials. PDA formats included electronic with web content, videos, and/or audio, questionnaires, bedside instruments, and a combination of various formats. Average participant age ranged from 36.0 to 62.4 years. Patients and caregivers identified efficacy, adverse effects, cost, and quality of life as important decision-making factors. PDAs were associated with increased knowledge and patient satisfaction as well as decreased decisional conflict and attitudinal barriers. Research on PDAs for adult patients with hematologic malignancies and their caregivers is limited. Among the studies, PDAs appear to support patients in shared decision-making.

Conclusion: While current literature examining the use of PDAs for adults with hematologic malignancies is limited, the positive impact of PDAs on shared decision-making and patient outcomes warrants additional research in this field.

Keywords: decision aids; hematologic malignancies; shared decision-making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Thomas Leblanc: AbbVie, Agios, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Astellas, CareVive, BMS/Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Heron, Flatiron, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics (C/A), American Cancer Society, AstraZeneca, BMS, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, the NINR/NIH, Seattle Genetics (RF), BlueNote (H), pToDate, Agios, AbbVie, BMS/Celgene (Other); Kah Poh Loh: Pfizer, Seattle Genetics (C/A), Pfizer (H). The other authors indicated no financial relationships.

(C/A) Consulting/advisory relationship; (RF) Research funding; (E) Employment; (ET) Expert testimony; (H) Honoraria received; (OI) Ownership interests; (IP) Intellectual property rights/inventor/patent holder; (SAB) Scientific advisory board.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Study selection flowchart.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Fitzmaurice C, Akinyemiju TF, Al Lami FH, et al. . Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(11):1553-1568.10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2706. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hoffmann TC, Légaré F, Simmons MB, et al. . Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother? Med J Aust. 2014;201(1):35-39. 10.5694/mja14.00002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kehl KL, Landrum MB, Arora NK, et al. . Association of actual and preferred decision roles with patient-reported quality of care: shared decision making in cancer care. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(1):50-58. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2014.112. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brown R, Butow P, Wilson-Genderson M, et al. . Meeting the decision-making preferences of patients with breast cancer in oncology consultations: impact on decision-related outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(8):857-862. 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.7952. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Llewellyn-Thomas HA. Patients’ health-care decision making: a framework for descriptive and experimental investigations. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(2):101-106. 10.1177/0272989X9501500201. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types