IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i7p870-896.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)

Author

Listed:
  • Renata W. Yen

    (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA)

  • Jenna Smith

    (Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)

  • Jaclyn Engel

    (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA)

  • Danielle Marie Muscat

    (Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)

  • Sian K. Smith

    (University of Bath, School of Management, Bath, Somerset, UK)

  • Julien Mancini

    (Aix-Marseille Université, APHM, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Marseille, Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azu, France)

  • Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez

    (Evaluation Unit (SESCS), Canary Islands Health Service (SCS), REDISSEC, Tenerife, Spain)

  • Glyn Elwyn

    (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA)

  • A. James O’Malley

    (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA
    Department of Biomedical Sciences, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA)

  • JoAnna K. Leyenaar

    (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA
    Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA)

  • Olivia Mac

    (Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)

  • Tamara Cadet

    (School of Social Work, Simmons University, Boston, MA, USA
    Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Anik Giguere

    (Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada)

  • Ashley J. Housten

    (Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA)

  • Aisha Langford

    (New York University School of Medicine, Division of Comparative Effectiveness and Decision Science, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Medical Centre, New York, NY, USA)

  • Kirsten McCaffery

    (Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)

  • Marie-Anne Durand

    (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA
    Faculté de Médecine, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France)

Abstract

Background The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied. Purpose To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions. Data Sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs. Study Selection Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations. Data Extraction Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Data Synthesis Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I 2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I 2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = −9.59; 95% CI −18.94, −0.24 [I 2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I 2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI −0.22, 0.26 [I 2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials. Limitations Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up. Conclusions PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective. Highlights Systematic review and meta-analysis of patient decision aids and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for disadvantaged populations. Patient decision aids and other SDM interventions improve patient-reported outcomes for disadvantaged populations. There was no evidence on what intervention characteristics best supported disadvantaged populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Renata W. Yen & Jenna Smith & Jaclyn Engel & Danielle Marie Muscat & Sian K. Smith & Julien Mancini & Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez & Glyn Elwyn & A. James O’Malley & JoAnna K. Leyenaar & Olivia Mac & , 2021. "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 870-896, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:7:p:870-896
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211020317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211020317
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211020317?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. Danielle M. Muscat & Jenna Smith & Olivia Mac & Tamara Cadet & Anik Giguere & Ashley J. Housten & Aisha T. Langford & Sian K. Smith & Marie-Anne Durand & Kirsten McCaffery, 2021. "Addressing Health Literacy in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 848-869, October.
    2. Kristin L. Rising & Judd E. Hollander & Jason T. Schaffer & Jeffrey A. Kline & Carlos A. Torres & Deborah B. Diercks & Russell Jones & Kelly P. Owen & Zachary F. Meisel & Michel Demers & Annie Leblanc, 2018. "Effectiveness of a Decision Aid in Potentially Vulnerable Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 69-78, January.
    3. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    4. Marie-Anne Durand & Lewis Carpenter & Hayley Dolan & Paulina Bravo & Mala Mann & Frances Bunn & Glyn Elwyn, 2014. "Do Interventions Designed to Support Shared Decision-Making Reduce Health Inequalities? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, April.
    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. Benjamin Miranda Tabak & Matheus B. Froner & Rafael Corrêa & Thiago C. Silva, 2023. "The Intersection of Health Literacy and Public Health: A Machine Learning-Enhanced Bibliometric Investigation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(20), pages 1-18, October.
    2. 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. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    2. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    6. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    7. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    8. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    9. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    11. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    12. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    13. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    14. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    15. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    16. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    17. Subramaniam, Mega & Pang, Natalie & Morehouse, Shandra & Asgarali-Hoffman, S. Nisa, 2020. "Examining vulnerability in youth digital information practices scholarship: What are we missing or exhausting?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    18. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    19. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(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:870-896. 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.