IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v36y2016i6p760-776.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Holly O. Witteman
  • Teresa Gavaruzzi
  • Laura D. Scherer
  • Arwen H. Pieterse
  • Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis
  • Selma Chipenda Dansokho
  • Nicole Exe
  • Valerie C. Kahn
  • Deb Feldman-Stewart
  • Nananda F. Col
  • Alexis F. Turgeon
  • Angela Fagerlin

Abstract

Background. Diverse values clarification methods exist. It is important to understand which, if any, of their design features help people clarify values relevant to a health decision. Purpose. To explore the effects of design features of explicit values clarification methods on outcomes including decisional conflict, values congruence, and decisional regret. Data Sources. MEDLINE, all EBM Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, manual search of reference lists, and expert contacts. Study Selection. Articles were included if they described the evaluation of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. Data Extraction. We extracted details about the evaluation, whether it was conducted in the context of actual or hypothetical decisions, and the results of the evaluation. We combined these data with data from a previous review about each values clarification method’s design features. Data Synthesis. We identified 20 evaluations of values clarification methods within 19 articles. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous. Few studies reported values congruence or postdecision outcomes. The most promising design feature identified was explicitly showing people the implications of their values, for example, by displaying the extent to which each of their decision options aligns with what matters to them. Limitations . Because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Results should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions . Few values clarification methods have been evaluated experimentally. More research is needed to determine effects of different design features of values clarification methods and to establish best practices in values clarification. When feasible, evaluations should assess values congruence and postdecision measures of longer-term outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Holly O. Witteman & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Laura D. Scherer & Arwen H. Pieterse & Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Nicole Exe & Valerie C. Kahn & Deb Feldman-Stewart & Nananda F. Col & Ale, 2016. "Effects of Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(6), pages 760-776, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:6:p:760-776
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16634085
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16634085
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16634085?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. Pieterse, Arwen H. & de Vries, Marieke & Kunneman, Marleen & Stiggelbout, Anne M. & Feldman-Stewart, Deb, 2013. "Theory-informed design of values clarification methods: A cognitive psychological perspective on patient health-related decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 156-163.
    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. 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.
    2. Holly O. Witteman & Ruth Ndjaboue & Gratianne Vaisson & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Bob Arnold & John F. P. Bridges & Sandrine Comeau & Angela Fagerlin & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Melina Marcoux & Arwen Pieter, 2021. "Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 801-820, 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. Holly O. Witteman & Laura D. Scherer & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Arwen H. Pieterse & Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Nicole Exe & Valerie C. Kahn & Deb Feldman-Stewart & Nananda F. Col & Ale, 2016. "Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 453-471, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Holly O. Witteman & Ruth Ndjaboue & Gratianne Vaisson & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Bob Arnold & John F. P. Bridges & Sandrine Comeau & Angela Fagerlin & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Melina Marcoux & Arwen Pieter, 2021. "Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 801-820, October.
    4. Holly O. Witteman & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Nicole Exe & Audrey Dupuis & Thierry Provencher & Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher, 2015. "Risk Communication, Values Clarification, and Vaccination Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1801-1819, October.
    5. Peter Scalia & Marie-Anne Durand & Jan Kremer & Marjan Faber & Glyn Elwyn, 2018. "Online, Interactive Option Grid Patient Decision Aids and their Effect on User Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 56-68, January.

    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:36:y:2016:i:6:p:760-776. 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.