The Effect of Patient Decision Aid Attributes on Patient Outcomes: A Network Meta-Analysis of a Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BackgroundPatient decision aids (PtDAs) are effective interventions to help people participate in health care decisions. Although there are quality standards, PtDAs are complex interventions with variability in their attributes.PurposeTo determine and compare the effects of PtDA attributes (e.g., content elements, delivery timing, development) on primary outcomes for adults facing health care decisions.Data SourcesA systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PtDAs to usual care.Study SelectionEligible RCTs measured at least 1 primary outcome: informed values choice, knowledge, accurate risk perception, decisional conflict subscales, and undecided.Data AnalysisA network meta-analysis evaluated direct and indirect effects of PtDA attributes on primary outcomes.Data SynthesisOf 209 RCTs, 149 reported eligible outcomes. There was no difference in outcomes for PtDAs using implicit compared with explicit values clarification. Compared with PtDAs with probabilities, PtDAs without probabilities were associated with poorer patient knowledge (mean difference [MD] -3.86; 95% credible interval [CrI] -7.67, -0.03); there were no difference for other outcomes. There was no difference in outcomes when PtDAs presented information in ways that decrease cognitive demand and mixed results when PtDAs used strategies to enhance communication. Compared with PtDAs delivered in preparation for consultations, PtDAs used during consultations were associated with poorer knowledge (MD -4.34; 95% CrI -7.24, -1.43) and patients feeling more uninformed (MD 5.07; 95% CrI 1.06, 9.11). Involving patients in PtDA development was associated with greater knowledge (MD 6.56; 95% CrI 1.10, 12.03) compared with involving health care professionals alone.LimitationsThere were no direct comparisons between PtDAs with/without attributes.ConclusionsImprovements in knowledge were influenced by some PtDA content elements, using PtDA content before the consultation, and involving patients in development. There were few or no differences on other outcomes.HighlightsThis is the first known network meta-analysis conducted to determine the contributions of the different attributes of patient decision aids (PtDAs) on patient outcomes.There was no difference in outcomes when PtDAs used implicit compared with explicit values clarification.There were greater improvements in knowledge when PtDAs included information on probabilities, PtDAs were used in preparation for the consultation or development included patients on the research team.There was no difference in outcomes when PtDAs presented information in ways that decrease cognitive demand and mixed results when PtDAs used strategies to enhance communication.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,125 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,019 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».