IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i4p522-539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 2 Subanalysis of a Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren Hoefel

    (School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Krystina B Lewis

    (School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Annette O’Connor

    (School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Dawn Stacey

    (School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
    Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Canada)

Abstract

Background. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has guided the development of patient decision aids (PtDAs) for 20 years and needs updating across a range of decisions and hypothesized outcomes. Purpose. To determine the effectiveness of ODSF-developed PtDAs on hypothesized outcomes and to recommend framework changes. Data Source. A subanalysis of randomized controlled trials included in the 2017 Cochrane review of PtDAs comparing PtDAs to usual care in adults considering health treatment or screening decisions (searched to 2015). Study Selection. Trials in the original review that evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Data Synthesis. Meta-analyses of ODSF outcomes with similar measurements and descriptions of other reported outcomes. Results. Of 105 trials, 24 evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Compared with usual care, ODSF PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference [MD] 13.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.32−17.37; 14 trials), increased accurate risk perceptions (risk ratio [RR] 2.41; 95% CI 1.66−3.48; 7 trials), and increased congruence between informed values and chosen options (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09−1.59; 4 trials). They reduced perceived decisional needs as measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale (MD −5.92; 95% CI −8.58 to −3.26; 15 trials) and the proportion of undecided patients (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.50−0.83; 13 trials). Non-ODSF PtDAs, designed with or without a specific framework, also outperformed usual care. Few ODSF trials measured secondary outcomes. Limitations. The included trials had heterogeneity. Conclusion. ODSF PtDAs address decisional needs and improve decision quality; the best indicator of addressing perceived uncertainty is “proportion undecided.†Secondary ODSF outcomes should be reduced to adherence to one’s chosen option and use/costs of health services, which warrant further research.

Suggested Citation

  • Lauren Hoefel & Krystina B Lewis & Annette O’Connor & Dawn Stacey, 2020. "20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 2 Subanalysis of a Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 522-539, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:4:p:522-539
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20924645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20924645
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20924645?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. Mirjam M. Garvelink & Laura Boland & Krystal Klein & Don Vu Nguyen & Matthew Menear & Hilary L. Bekker & Karen B. Eden & Annie LeBlanc & Annette M. O’Connor & Dawn Stacey & France Légaré, 2019. "Decisional Conflict Scale Findings among Patients and Surrogates Making Health Decisions: Part II of an Anniversary Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 316-327, May.
    2. McBride, C.M. & Bastian, L.A. & Halabi, S. & Fish, L. & Lipkus, I.M. & Bosworth, H.B. & Rimer, B.K. & Siegler, I.C., 2002. "A tailored intervention to aid decisionmaking about hormone replacement therapy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(7), pages 1112-1114.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Annette M. O'Connor & Dawn Stacey & Michael J. Barry & Nananda F. Col & Karen B. Eden & Vikki Entwistle & Valerie Fiset & Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Sara Khangura & Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas & David R. Ro, 2007. "Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 554-574, September.
    2. Nananda F. Col & Long Ngo & Jennifer M. Fortin & Robert J. Goldberg & Annette M. O'Connor, 2007. "Can Computerized Decision Support Help Patients Make Complex Treatment Decisions? A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Individualized Menopause Decision Aid," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 585-598, September.

    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:40:y:2020:i:4:p:522-539. 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.