IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i7p938-953.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Guidance and/or Decision Coaching with Patient Decision Aids: Scoping Reviews to Inform the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)

Author

Listed:
  • Anne Christin Rahn

    (Institute for Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Nursing Research Unit, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany, Institute of Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis (INIMS), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
    Department of Health Services Research, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Niedersachsen, Germany)

  • Janet Jull

    (Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada)

  • Laura Boland

    (Western University, London, Canada
    Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Jeanette Finderup

    (Aarhus University Hospital & Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark and ResCenPI - Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University & the Central Denmark Region, Denmark)

  • Marie-Chantal Loiselle

    (University of Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada)

  • Maureen Smith

    (Cochrane Consumer, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Sascha Köpke

    (Institute of Nursing Science, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany)

  • Dawn Stacey

    (University of Ottawa and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

Abstract

Introduction In 2005, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) collaboration identified guidance and decision coaching as important dimensions of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and developed a set of quality criteria. We sought to update definitions, theoretical rationale, and evidence for guidance and/or decision coaching used within or alongside PtDAs for the IPDAS update 2.0. Methods We conducted 2 scoping reviews on guidance and decision coaching, including systematic searches and a hand search of the Cochrane Review on PtDAs. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on guidance or decision coaching used with/alongside PtDAs. Data, including conceptual models, were summarized narratively and with meta-analyses when appropriate. Results Of 1022 citations, we found no RCTs that evaluated guidance in PtDAs. The 2013 definition for guidance was endorsed, and we made minimal changes to the description of guidance. Of 3039 citations, we identified 21 RCTs on decision coaching informed by 5 conceptual models stating that people exposed to decision coaching are more likely to progress in making informed decisions consistent with their values. Compared to usual care, decision coaching with PtDAs led to improved knowledge mean difference [MD], 19.5/100; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0–29.0; 5 RCTs). Compared to decision coaching alone, PtDAs led to a small improvement in knowledge (MD, 3.6/100; 95% CI, 1.0–6.3; 3 RCTs). There were variable effects on other outcomes. We simplified the decision coaching definition slightly and defined minimal decision coaching elements. Conclusion We found no evidence on which to propose changes in guidance in IPDAS. Decision coaching is continuing to be used alongside PtDAs, but there is inadequate evidence on the added effectiveness compared to PtDAs alone. The decision coaching definition was updated with minimal elements.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Christin Rahn & Janet Jull & Laura Boland & Jeanette Finderup & Marie-Chantal Loiselle & Maureen Smith & Sascha Köpke & Dawn Stacey, 2021. "Guidance and/or Decision Coaching with Patient Decision Aids: Scoping Reviews to Inform the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 938-953, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:7:p:938-953
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X21997330
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X21997330
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X21997330?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. Dawn Stacey & France Légaré & Laura Boland & Krystina B. Lewis & Marie-Chantal Loiselle & Lauren Hoefel & Mirjam Garvelink & Annette O’Connor, 2020. "20th Anniversary Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 3 Overview of Systematic Reviews and Updated Framework," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 379-398, April.
    2. Leif I. Solberg & Stephen E. Asche & Karen Sepucha & N. Marcus Thygeson & Joan E. Madden & Larry Morrissey & Karen K. Kraemer & Louise H. Anderson, 2010. "Informed Choice Assistance for Women Making Uterine Fibroid Treatment Decisions: A Practical Clinical Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(4), pages 444-452, 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. Yueh-Ling Liao & Tsae-Jyy Wang & Chien-Wei Su & Shu-Yuan Liang & Chieh-Yu Liu & Jun-Yu Fan, 2023. "Efficacy of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Related to Hepatocellular Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 32(1), pages 233-243, January.
    2. Holly O. Witteman & Kristin G. Maki & Gratianne Vaisson & Jeanette Finderup & Krystina B. Lewis & Karina Dahl Steffensen & Caroline Beaudoin & Sandrine Comeau & Robert J. Volk, 2021. "Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 736-754, 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:41:y:2021:i:7:p:938-953. 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.