Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
VITAM Research Centre, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):801-820. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211037946.
Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment.
To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL.
We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods.
Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation.
Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, -0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.06 to -0.02; < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.11; < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ = 9.25, = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ = 6.08, = 0.05).
Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories.
Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.
患者决策辅助工具应帮助人们做出基于证据并与自身价值观相符的决策。然而,目前对于如何实现这种一致性的指导有限。
描述患者决策辅助工具开发者可使用的各种价值观澄清方法,综合评估这些方法相对优势的证据,并通过提供一套建议的结果评估指标来促进证据的收集,以评估价值观澄清方法的效果。
MEDLINE、EMBASE、PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane 图书馆和 CINAHL。
我们纳入了描述 1 种或多种明确价值观澄清方法的随机试验的文章。在筛选出的 30648 条记录中,我们确定了 33 篇描述 43 种价值观澄清方法的试验文章。
两位独立的审查员提取了每种价值观澄清方法及其评估的详细信息。
与对照组或隐含价值观澄清方法相比,明确价值观澄清方法降低了价值观不一致选择的频率(差异风险,-0.04;95%置信区间 [CI],-0.06 至 -0.02;<0.001)和决策冲突(标准化均数差,-0.20;95%CI,-0.29 至 -0.11;<0.001)。多准则决策分析导致更多价值观一致的决策(χ²=9.25, = 0.01)。不同价值观澄清方法在决策冲突方面没有差异(χ²=6.08, = 0.05)。
一些荟萃分析存在高度异质性。我们将价值观澄清方法分为广泛的类别。
现有证据表明,患者决策辅助工具应包含明确的价值观澄清方法。开发者可能希望特别考虑多准则决策分析。未来对价值观澄清方法的评估应报告其对决策冲突、决策结果、价值观一致性和决策后悔的影响。