Decision aids to prepare patients for shared decision making
Two randomized controlled experiments on the impact of awareness of preference‐sensitivity and personal motives
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 19506207 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Simone Korger (0009-0005-3737-7340, Knowledge Construction Lab Leibniz‐Institut fuer Wissensmedien Tuebingen Germany), Marie Eggeling (0000-0001-9749-7321, Knowledge Construction Lab Leibniz‐Institut fuer Wissensmedien Tuebingen Germany, autor correspondente), Ulrike Cre (0000-0002-8996-8303, Knowledge Construction Lab Leibniz‐Institut fuer Wissensmedien Tuebingen Germany), Joachim Kimmerle (0000-0002-6345-9498, Knowledge Construction Lab Leibniz‐Institut fuer Wissensmedien Tuebingen Germany), Martina Bientzle (0000-0002-1312-4032, Knowledge Construction Lab Leibniz‐Institut fuer Wissensmedien Tuebingen Germany) |
| Ano | 2021 |
| Volume | 24 |
| Fascículo | 2 |
| Páginas | 257-268 |
| Data de publicação | 2021-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Health Expectations (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625 |
| Editora | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/hex.13159 |
| PMID | 33517579 |
| OpenAlex | W3127364474 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 1 |
| Referências citadas | 53 |
Objective To participate in shared decision making (SDM), patients need to understand their options and develop trust in their own decision‐making abilities. Two experiments investigated the potential of decision aids (DAs) in preparing patients for SDM by raising awareness of preference‐sensitivity (Study 1) and showing possible personal motives for decision making (Study 2) in addition to providing information about the treatment options. Methods Participants (Study 1: N = 117; Study 2: N = 217) were put into two scenarios (Study 1: cruciate ligament rupture; Study 2: contraception), watched a consultation video and were randomized into one of three groups where they received additional information in the form of (a) narrative patient testimonials; (b) non‐narrative decision strategies; and (c) an unrelated text (control group). Results Participants who viewed the patient testimonials or decision strategies felt better prepared for a decision (Study 1: P < .001, = 0.43; Study 2: P < .001, = 0.57) and evaluated the decision‐making process more positively (Study 2: P < .001, = 0.13) than participants in the control condition. Decision certainty (Study 1: P < .001, = 0.05) and satisfaction (Study 1: P < .001, = 0.11; Study 2: P = .003, d = 0.29) were higher across all conditions after watching the consultation video, and certainty and satisfaction were lower in the control condition (Study 2: P < .001, = 0.05). Discussion Decision aids that explain preference‐sensitivity and personal motives can be beneficial for improving people's feelings of being prepared and their perception of the decision‐making process. To reach decision certainty and satisfaction, being well informed of one's options is particularly relevant. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and the design of DAs
Alternative medicine · Certainty · Decision aids · Feeling · Narrative · Perception · Preference · Attachment and Relationship Dynamics · Computer Science · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Medicine · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Psychology · Social Psychology
Shared decision making
The Influence of Narrative v. Statistical Information on Perceiving Vaccination Risks
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Knowledge is not power for patients
Validation of a Decisional Conflict Scale
Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids
Patient preferences for shared decisions
Non-normal data
Shared Decision Making
Is It Really Robust?
The impact of a physician’s recommendation and gender on informed decision making
Deliberation before determination
Physicians' perceptions of shared decision‐making behaviours
The impact of physicians' communication styles on evaluation of physicians and information processing
Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review
| Obras citantes distintas | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 0,25 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2022 - 2022 (1) |
| Velocidade de citação | historical |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 1 |