The Effect of Patient Decision Aid Attributes on Patient Outcomes: A Network Meta-Analysis of a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".