IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i2p143-155.html

How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities

Author

Listed:
  • Romy Richter

    (Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)

  • Jesse Jansen

    (Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)

  • Josine van der Kraan

    (Netherlands Patients Federation, Utrecht, the Netherlands)

  • Wais Abbaspoor

    (Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)

  • Iris Bongaerts

    (Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)

  • Fleur Pouwels

    (Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)

  • Celine Vilters

    (Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)

  • Jany Rademakers

    (Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
    Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel), Utrecht, the Netherlands)

  • Trudy van der Weijden

    (Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands)

Abstract

Objective Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can support shared decision making. We aimed to explore how inclusive PtDAs are for people with limited health literacy (LHL) by analyzing 1) the understandability of PtDAs using established criteria, 2) how options and probabilities of outcomes are communicated, and 3) the extent to which risk communication (RC) guidelines are followed. Methods In a descriptive document analysis, we analyzed Dutch PtDAs available in 2021 that met the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. We developed and pilot tested a data extraction form based on key RC and health literacy literature. Results Most PtDAs (151/198) met most of the understandability criteria on layout (7–8 out of 8 items) such as font size but not on content aspects (121/198 PtDAs scored 5–7 out of 12 items) such as defining medical terms. Only 31 of 198 PtDAs used a short and simple sentence structure. Most PtDAs presented 2 to 4 treatment options. Many followed RC recommendations such as the use of numerical RC strategies such as percentages or natural frequencies (160/198) and visual formats such as icon arrays (91/198). Only 10 used neutral framing (10/198). When presented, uncertainty was presented verbally (134/198) or in ranges (58/198). Four PtDAs were co-created together with patients with LHL and used only verbal RC or no RC. Conclusion Most PtDAs met most of the understandability criteria on layout, but content aspects and adherence to RC strategies can be improved. Many PtDAs used long sentences and mostly verbal RC and are therefore likely to be inappropriate for patients with LHL. Further research is needed on PtDA characteristics and RC strategies suitable for people with LHL. Highlights Despite meeting most criteria for understandability, many of the Dutch PtDAs use long sentences, which likely impede comprehension for patients with LHL. Most of the Dutch PtDAs follow established recommendations for risk communication, with room for improvement for some strategies such as framing and a clear reference to the time frame. Overall, more research is needed to tailor PtDAs to the needs of people with LHL.

Suggested Citation

  • Romy Richter & Jesse Jansen & Josine van der Kraan & Wais Abbaspoor & Iris Bongaerts & Fleur Pouwels & Celine Vilters & Jany Rademakers & Trudy van der Weijden, 2025. "How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(2), pages 143-155, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:2:p:143-155
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241302288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241302288
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241302288?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. repec:plo:pone00:0227304 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    5. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.
    6. repec:plo:pone00:0004705 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Mary C. Politi & Paul K. J. Han & Nananda F. Col, 2007. "Communicating the Uncertainty of Harms and Benefits of Medical Interventions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 681-695, September.
    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. 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.
    2. Stacey L. Sheridan, 2022. "Translating Evidence Updates to International Standards: Is More Certainty Needed for International Standards on Decision Aids?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(1), pages 3-7, January.
    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. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    6. Jurriaan P. Oudhoff & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans, 2015. "The Effect of Different Graphical and Numerical Likelihood Formats on Perception of Likelihood and Choice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 487-500, May.
    7. Ellen Peters & Brittany Shoots-Reinhard, 2022. "Numeracy and the Motivational Mind: The Power of Numeric Self-efficacy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(6), pages 729-740, August.
    8. Weina Liu & Chaonan Xu & Yajie Peng & Xinlong Xu, 2023. "Evolution of Tourism Risk Communication: A Bibliometric Analysis and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents of Communicating Risk to Tourists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-31, June.
    9. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    10. Warut Khern-am-nuai & Matthew J. Hashim & Alain Pinsonneault & Weining Yang & Ninghui Li, 2023. "Augmenting Password Strength Meter Design Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model: Evidence from Randomized Experiments," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 157-177, March.
    11. Kelly Klima & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & M. Granger Morgan & Iris Grossmann, 2012. "Public Perceptions of Hurricane Modification," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1194-1206, July.
    12. Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2022. "Combining nudges and boosts to increase precautionary saving: A large-scale field experiment," Papers WP722, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    13. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2013. "Helping Individuals to Understand Synergistic Risks: An Assessment of Message Contents Depicting Mechanistic and Probabilistic Concepts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 851-865, May.
    14. Rebecca Blase & Julia Meis-Harris & Birgitta Weltermann & Simone Dohle, 2024. "Icon Arrays for Medical Risk Communication: Do Icon Type and Color Influence Cardiovascular Risk Perception and Recall?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(6), pages 661-673, August.
    15. Jakob D. Jensen & Manusheela Pokharel & Courtney L. Scherr & Andy J. King & Natasha Brown & Christina Jones, 2017. "Communicating Uncertain Science to the Public: How Amount and Source of Uncertainty Impact Fatalism, Backlash, and Overload," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 40-51, January.
    16. Tanja Perko & Baldwin van Gorp & Catrinel Turcanu & Peter Thijssen & Benny Carle, 2013. "Communication in Nuclear Emergency Preparedness: A Closer Look at Information Reception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1987-2001, November.
    17. Aven, Terje, 2018. "Perspectives on the nexus between good risk communication and high scientific risk analysis quality," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 290-296.
    18. Alessandro ACQUISTI & Jens GROSSKLAGS, 2012. "An Online Survey Experiment on Ambiguity and Privacy," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(88), pages 19-39, 4th quart.
    19. Richard Moss, 2011. "Reducing doubt about uncertainty: Guidance for IPCC’s third assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 641-658, October.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:45:y:2025:i:2:p:143-155. 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.