IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i7p780-800.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

Author

Listed:
  • Richard W. Martin

    (Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI, USA)

  • Stina BrogÃ¥rd Andersen

    (Department of Clinical Development, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
    Center for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark
    Department of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark)

  • Mary Ann O’Brien

    (Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada)

  • Paulina Bravo

    (School of Nursing, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
    Millennium Nucleus Center Authority and Power Asymmetries)

  • Tammy Hoffmann

    (Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia)

  • Karina Olling

    (Center for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark)

  • Heather L. Shepherd

    (University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Kathrina Dankl

    (Design School Kolding, Lab for Social Design, Kolding, Denmark)

  • Dawn Stacey

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

  • Karina Dahl Steffensen

    (Center for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark
    Department of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
    Department of Clinical Oncology, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark)

Abstract

Background The objective of this International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS) review is to update and synthesize theoretical and empirical evidence on how balanced information can be presented and measured in patient decision aids (PtDAs). Methods A multidisciplinary team conducted a scoping review using 2 search strategies in multiple electronic databases evaluating the ways investigators defined and measured the balance of information provided about options in PtDAs. The first strategy combined a search informed by the Cochrane Review of the Effectiveness of Decision Aids with a search on balanced information. The second strategy repeated the search published in the 2013 IPDAS update on balanced presentation. Results Of 2450 unique citations reviewed, the full text of 168 articles was screened for eligibility. Sixty-four articles were included in the review, of which 13 provided definitions of balanced presentation, 8 evaluated mechanisms that may introduce bias, and 42 quantitatively measured balanced with methods consistent with the IPDAS criteria in PtDAs. The revised definition of balanced information is, “Objective, complete, salient, transparent, evidence-informed, and unbiased presentation of text and visual information about the condition and all relevant options (with important elements including the features, benefits, harms and procedures of those options) in a way that does not favor one option over another and enables individuals to focus attention on important elements and process this information.†Conclusions Developers can increase the balance of information in PtDAs by informing their structure and design elements using the IPDAS checklist. We suggest that new PtDA components pertaining to balance be evaluated for cognitive bias with experimental methods as well by objectively evaluating patients’ and content experts’ beliefs from multiple perspectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard W. Martin & Stina BrogÃ¥rd 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:7:p:780-800
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211021397
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211021397
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211021397?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. Lauren Hoefel & Annette M. O’Connor & Krystina B. Lewis & Laura Boland & Lindsey Sikora & Jiale Hu & Dawn Stacey, 2020. "20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework Part 1: A Systematic Review of the Decisional Needs of People Making Health or Social Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(5), pages 555-581, July.
    3. Dhami, Sanjit, 2016. "The Foundations of Behavioral Economic Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198715535.
    4. Annette M. O'Connor & Peter Tugwell & George A. Wells & Tom Elmslie & Elaine Jolly & Gary Hollingworth & Ruth Mcpherson & Elizabeth Drake & Wilma Hopman & Thomas Mackenzie, 1998. "Randomized Trial of a Portable, Self-administered Decision Aid for Postmenopausal Women Considering Long-term Preventive Hormone Therapy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(3), pages 295-303, August.
    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.
    6. Richard W. Martin & Ryan D. Enck & Donald J. Tellinghuisen & Aaron T. Eggebeen & James D. Birmingham & Andrew J. Head, 2017. "Comparison of the Effects of a Pharmaceutical Industry Decision Guide and Decision Aids on Patient Choice to Intensify Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(5), pages 577-588, July.
    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. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Jonas Frey, 2020. "Optimal Stopping in a Dynamic Salience Model," CESifo Working Paper Series 8496, CESifo.
    2. Gruener, Sven, 2019. "An empirical study on Internet-based false news stories: experiences, problem awareness, and responsibilities," SocArXiv xbez9, Center for Open Science.
    3. Ortiz-Riomalo, Juan Felipe & Koessler, Ann-Kathrin & Engel, Stefanie, 2021. "Inducing perspective-taking for prosocial behaviour in natural resource management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. Dhami, Sanjit & Wei, Mengxing & Mamidi, Pavan, 2024. "Religious identity, trust, reciprocity, and prosociality: Theory and evidence," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    5. Sanjit Dhami & Ali al-Nowaihi, 2016. "Social responsibility, human morality and public policy," Discussion Papers in Economics 16/20, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    6. Sanjit Dhami & Emma Manifold & Ali al-Nowaihi, 2018. "Prosociality, Political Identity, and Redistribution of Earned Income: Theory and Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 7256, CESifo.
    7. Sanjit Dhami & Emma Manifold & Ali al‐Nowaihi, 2021. "Identity and Redistribution: Theory and Evidence," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(350), pages 499-531, April.
    8. Carrillo, Paul & Emran, M. Shahe, 2018. "Loss Aversion, Transaction Costs, or Audit Trigger? Learning about Corporate Tax Compliance from a Policy Experiment with Withholding Regime," MPRA Paper 87445, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Dubra, Juan & Egozcue, Martín & García, Luis Fuentes, 2019. "Optimal consumption sequences under habit formation and satiation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 70-76.
    10. Minh T. Le & Alejandro Saporiti & Yizhi Wang, 2021. "Distributive politics with other‐regarding preferences," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(2), pages 203-227, April.
    11. Shabnam Mousavi & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2017. "Heuristics are Tools for Uncertainty," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 361-379, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Denis Fougere & Arthur Heim, 2019. "L'évaluation socioéconomique de l'investissement social: Comment mettre en oeuvre des analyses coûts-bénéfices pour les politiques d'emploi, de santé et d'éducation," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/5lge9h8e809, Sciences Po.
    14. Dhami, Sanjit & Wei, Mengxing & al-Nowaihi, Ali, 2019. "Public goods games and psychological utility: Theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 361-390.
    15. Sanjit Dhami & Narges Hajimoladarvish & Konstantinos Georgalos, 2023. "Precautionary Savings, Loss Aversion, and Risk: Theory and Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 10570, CESifo.
    16. Brice Corgnet, 2018. "Rac(g)e Against the Machine? Social Incentives When Humans Meet Robots," Post-Print halshs-01984467, HAL.
    17. Ciotti, Fabrizio & Hornuf, Lars & Stenzhorn, Eliza, 2021. "Lock-In Effects in Online Labor Markets," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2021014, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    18. Fulin Guo, 2023. "Experience-weighted attraction learning in network coordination games," Papers 2310.18835, arXiv.org.
    19. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    20. 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).

    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:780-800. 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.