IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i7p897-906.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Personal Stories Make Patient Decision Aids More Effective? An Update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards

Author

Listed:
  • Victoria A. Shaffer

    (Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA)

  • Suzanne Brodney

    (Division of Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Padova, Veneto, Italy)

  • Teresa Gavaruzzi

    (Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, Universita degli Studi di Padova Scuola di Psicologia, Padova, Veneto, Italy)

  • Yaara Zisman-Ilani

    (Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA)

  • Sarah Munro

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

  • Sian K. Smith

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)

  • Elizabeth Thomas

    (Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA)

  • Katherine D. Valentine

    (Health Decision Sciences Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Hilary L. Bekker

    (Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK)

Abstract

Background This article evaluates the evidence for the inclusion of patient narratives in patient decision aids (PtDAs). We define patient narratives as stories, testimonials, or anecdotes that provide illustrative examples of the experiences of others that are relevant to the decision at hand. Method To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of narratives in PtDAs, we conducted a narrative scoping review of the literature from January 2013 through June 2019 to identify relevant literature published since the last International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) update in 2013. We considered research articles that examined the impact of narratives on relevant outcomes or described relevant theoretical mechanisms. Results The majority of the empirical work on narratives did not measure concepts that are typically found in the PtDA literature (e.g., decisional conflict). Yet, a few themes emerged from our review that can be applied to the PtDA context, including the impact of narratives on relevant outcomes (knowledge, behavior change, and psychological constructs), as well as several theoretical mechanisms about how and why narratives work that can be applied to the PtDA context. Conclusion Based on this evidence update, we suggest that there may be situations when narratives could enhance the effectiveness of PtDAs. The recent theoretical work on narratives has underscored the fact that narratives are a multifaceted construct and should no longer be considered a binary option (include narratives or not). However, the bottom line is that the evidence does not support a recommendation for narratives to be a necessary component of PtDAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Victoria A. Shaffer & Suzanne Brodney & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Yaara Zisman-Ilani & Sarah Munro & Sian K. Smith & Elizabeth Thomas & Katherine D. Valentine & Hilary L. Bekker, 2021. "Do Personal Stories Make Patient Decision Aids More Effective? An Update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 897-906, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:7:p:897-906
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211011100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211011100
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211011100?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Winterbottom, Anna & Bekker, Hilary L. & Conner, Mark & Mooney, Andrew, 2008. "Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2079-2088, December.
    2. Laura D. Scherer & Jeffrey T. Kullgren & Tanner Caverly & Aaron M. Scherer & Victoria A. Shaffer & Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2018. "Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 708-718, August.
    3. Cornelia Betsch & Corina Ulshöfer & Frank Renkewitz & Tilmann Betsch, 2011. "The Influence of Narrative v. Statistical Information on Perceiving Vaccination Risks," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 742-753, September.
    4. Jensen, Jakob D. & King, Andy J. & Carcioppolo, Nick & Krakow, Melinda & Samadder, N. Jewel & Morgan, Susan, 2014. "Comparing tailored and narrative worksite interventions at increasing colonoscopy adherence in adults 50–75: A randomized controlled trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 31-40.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dawn Stacey & Robert J. Volk, 2021. "The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 729-733, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Freling, Traci H. & Yang, Zhiyong & Saini, Ritesh & Itani, Omar S. & Rashad Abualsamh, Ryan, 2020. "When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 51-67.
    2. K. D. Valentine & Pete Wegier & Victoria A. Shaffer & Laura D. Scherer, 2022. "The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 387-397, April.
    3. Eger, Jens & Kaplan, Lennart & Sternberg, Henrike, 2022. "How to reduce vaccination hesitancy? The relevance of evidence and its communicator," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 433, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    4. Cameron A. MacKenzie & Kristy A. Bryden & Anna A. Prisacari, 2020. "Integrating narratives into decision making for complex systems engineering design issues," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 65-81, January.
    5. Milner, Mattie & Rice, Stephen & Rice, Connor, 2019. "Support for environmentally-friendly airports influenced by political affiliation and social identity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    6. Laura D. Scherer & Jeffrey T. Kullgren & Tanner Caverly & Aaron M. Scherer & Victoria A. Shaffer & Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2018. "Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 708-718, August.
    7. Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica & Morelli, Massimo & Rosso, Anna Cecilia, 2023. "In medio stat virtus? Effective communication and preferences for redistribution in hard times," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 105-147.
    8. Claudio Deiana & Andrea Geraci & Gianluca Mazzarella & Fabio Sabatini, 2022. "Perceived risk and vaccine hesitancy: Quasi‐experimental evidence from Italy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 1266-1275, June.
    9. Jensen, Jakob D. & King, Andy J. & Carcioppolo, Nick & Krakow, Melinda & Samadder, N. Jewel & Morgan, Susan, 2014. "Comparing tailored and narrative worksite interventions at increasing colonoscopy adherence in adults 50–75: A randomized controlled trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 31-40.
    10. Susanne Hoffmann & Francis G. Caro & Alison S. Gottlieb & Iris Kesternich & Joachim K. Winter, 2014. "Contributions of Second Opinions, Outcome Forecasts, and Testimonials to Patient Decisions about Knee Replacement Surgery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 603-614, July.
    11. Alden, Dana L. & Friend, John & Schapira, Marilyn & Stiggelbout, Anne, 2014. "Cultural targeting and tailoring of shared decision making technology: A theoretical framework for improving the effectiveness of patient decision aids in culturally diverse groups," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 1-8.
    12. Pinandito Dhirotsaha Pramana & Prahastiwi Utari & Albert Muhammad Isrun Naini, 2020. "Restorative Narrative of Covid-19 Patients as Health Campaign Message: A Content Analysis of Youtube Videos," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 10(1), pages 121-132, August.
    13. repec:thr:techub:10010:y:2020:i:1:p:121-132 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Christopher E. Clarke & Jeff Niederdeppe & Helen C. Lundell, 2012. "Narratives and Images Used by Public Communication Campaigns Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Health Disparities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-24, November.
    15. Victoria A. Shaffer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2013. "All Stories Are Not Alike," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 4-13, January.
    16. Cornelia Betsch & Corina Ulshöfer & Frank Renkewitz & Tilmann Betsch, 2011. "The Influence of Narrative v. Statistical Information on Perceiving Vaccination Risks," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 742-753, September.
    17. Cornelia Betsch & Niels Haase & Frank Renkewitz & Philipp Schmid, 2015. "The narrative bias revisited: What drives the biasing influence of narrative information on risk perceptions?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(3), pages 241-264, May.
    18. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1271-1296, August.
    19. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Annika Wallin & Andrew M. Parker & JoNell Strough & Janel Hanmer, 2017. "Effects of Anti- Versus Pro-Vaccine Narratives on Responses by Recipients Varying in Numeracy: A Cross-sectional Survey-Based Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 860-870, November.
    20. Aaron H. Anglin & Shane W. Reid & Jeremy C. Short, 2023. "More Than One Way to Tell a Story: A Configurational Approach to Storytelling in Crowdfunding," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 461-494, March.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:241-264 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:7:p:897-906. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.