IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i1p56-68.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Online, Interactive Option Grid Patient Decision Aids and their Effect on User Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Scalia
  • Marie-Anne Durand
  • Jan Kremer
  • Marjan Faber
  • Glyn Elwyn

Abstract

Background. Randomized trials have shown that patient decision aids can modify users’ preferred healthcare options, but research has yet to identify the attributes embedded in these tools that cause preferences to shift. Objectives. The aim of this study was to investigate people’s preferences as they used decision aids for 5 health decisions and, for each of the following: 1) determine if using the interactive Option Grid led to a pre–post shift in preferences; 2) determine which frequently asked questions (FAQs) led to preference shifts; 3) determine the FAQs that were rated as the most important as users compared options. Methods. Interactive Option Grid decision aids enable users to view attributes of available treatment or screening options, rate their importance, and specify their preferred options before and after decision aid use. The McNemar–Bowker paired test was used to compare stated pre–post preferences. Multinomial logistic regressions were conducted to investigate possible associations between covariates and preference shifts. Results. Overall, 626 users completed the 5 most-used tools: 1) Amniocentesis test: yes or no? ( n = 73); 2) Angina: treatment options ( n = 88); 3) Breast cancer: surgical options ( n = 265); 4) Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test: yes or no? ( n = 82); 5) Statins for heart disease risk: yes or no? ( n = 118). The breast cancer, PSA, and statins Option Grid decision aids generated significant preference shifts. Generally, users shifted their preference when presented with the description of the available treatment options, and the risk associated with each option. Conclusion. The use of decision aids for some, but not all health decisions, was accompanied by a shift in user preferences. Users typically valued information associated with risks, and chose more risk averse options after completing the interactive tool.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:1:p:56-68
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17734538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17734538
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17734538?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. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    2. Richard W. Martin & Stina Brogård Andersen & Mary Ann O’Brien & Paulina Bravo & Tammy Hoffmann & Karina Olling & Heather L. Shepherd & Kathrina Dankl & Dawn Stacey & Karina Dahl Steffensen, 2021. "Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 780-800, 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 & 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.
    5. 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.

    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:38:y:2018:i:1:p:56-68. 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.