Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Annette M O'Connor a University of
Ottawa School of Nursing and Faculty of Medicine, Loeb Health Research
Institute Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4E9, b Sisters
of Charity of Ottawa Health Services, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, c Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen,
Aberdeen, Scotland, d University
of Toronto, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, North York,
Ontario, Canada, e Department of Medicine, Michigan State University, East
Lansing MI, USA, f General Medicine Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,
MA, USA, g Dundas, Ontario, Canada
Correspondence to: A O'Connor
aoconnor{at}LRI.CA
Objective:
To conduct a systematic review of
randomised trials of patient decision aids in improving decision making
and outcomes.
Design:
We included randomised trials of interventions providing structured, detailed, and specific information on treatment or screening options and outcomes to aid decision making. Two reviewers
independently screened and extracted data on several evaluation
criteria. Results were pooled by using weighted mean differences and
relative risks.
Results:
17 studies met the inclusion criteria.
Compared with the controls, decision aids produced higher knowledge
scores (weighted mean difference=19/100, 95% confidence interval 14 to 25); lower decisional conflict scores (weighted mean
difference=
0.3/5,
0.4 to
0.1); more active patient
participation in decision making (relative risk = 2.27, 95% confidence
interval 1.3 to 4); and no differences in anxiety, satisfaction with
decisions (weighted mean difference=0.6/100,
3 to 4), or
satisfaction with the decision making process (2/100,
3 to 7).
Decision aids had a variable effect on decisions. When complex decision
aids were compared with simpler versions, they were better at reducing
decisional conflict, improved knowledge marginally, but did not affect satisfaction.
Conclusions:
Decision aids improve knowledge, reduce
decisional conflict, and stimulate patients to be more active in
decision making without increasing their anxiety. Decision aids have
little effect on satisfaction and a variable effect on decisions. The effects on outcomes of decisions (persistence with choice, quality of
life) remain uncertain.
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.