A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online October, 2021
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)
The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied.
Purpose
To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions.
Data Sources
MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs.
Study Selection
Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations.
Data Extraction
Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.
Data Synthesis
Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = −9.59; 95% CI −18.94, −0.24 [I2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI −0.22, 0.26 [I2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials.
Limitations
Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up.
Conclusions
PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective.
Highlights
Systematic review and meta-analysis of patient decision aids and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for disadvantaged populations.
Patient decision aids and other SDM interventions improve patient-reported outcomes for disadvantaged populations.
There was no evidence on what intervention characteristics best supported disadvantaged populations.
ElwynGDurandMASongJ, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;359:j4891.
2.
StaceyDLégaréFLewisK, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(4):CD001431. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
3.
LégaréFAdekpedjouRStaceyD, et al. Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7:CD006732.
4.
CutilliCCBennettIM.Understanding the health literacy of America: results of the National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Orthop Nurs. 2009;28(1):27–32.
5.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s Health 2018. Australia’s health series no. 16. AUS 221. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2018.
6.
SørensenKPelikanJMRöthlinF, et al. Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU). Eur J Public Health. 2015;25(6):1053–8.
7.
RajahRHassaliMAAMurugiahMK.A systematic review of the prevalence of limited health literacy in Southeast Asian countries. Public Health. 2019;167:8–15.
8.
McClintockHFAlberJMSchraubenSJMazzolaCMWiebeDJ.Constructing a measure of health literacy in Sub-Saharan African countries. Health Promot Int. 2020;35(5):907–15.
9.
Paasche-OrlowMKWolfMS.The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31(suppl 1):S19–26.
10.
NutbeamDLloydJE.Understanding and responding to health literacy as a social determinant of health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021;42:159–73.
11.
EgedeLE.Race, ethnicity, culture, and disparities in health care. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(6):667–9.
12.
BravemanPGottliebL.The social determinants of health: it’s time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Rep. 2014;129(suppl 2):19–31.
13.
DurandM-ACarpenterLDolanH, et al. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e94670.
14.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
15.
HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0. Updated July2019. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
16.
Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey, summary results. Report No. 4228.0. Commonwealth of Australia; 2006.
17.
MartinLTRuderTEscarceJJ, et al. Developing predictive models of health literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(11):1211–6.
18.
KilbourneAMSwitzerGHymanKCrowley-MatokaMFineMJ.Advancing health disparities research within the health care system: a conceptual framework. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(12):2113–21.
19.
EnardKRDolan MullenPKamathGRDixonNMVolkRJ.Are cancer-related decision aids appropriate for socially disadvantaged patients? A systematic review of US randomized controlled trials. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16:64.
20.
StaceyDLégaréFColNF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD001431. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4
21.
OuzzaniMHammadyHFedorowiczZElmagarmidA.Rayyan: a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210.
22.
SchollIKoelewijn-van LoonMSepuchaK, et al. Measurement of shared decision making: a review of instruments. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2011;105(4):313–24.
23.
HoffmannTCGlasziouPPBoutronI, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.
24.
SterneJACSavovićJPageMJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
25.
RileyRDHigginsJPTDeeksJJ.Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ. 2011;342:d549.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna (Austria): R Core Teaml 2020. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/
28.
HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al., eds. Chapter 10: analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July2019). Cochrane, 2019. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
29.
SidikKJonkmanJN.A simple confidence interval for meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(21):3153–9.
30.
HartungJKnappG.A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Stat Med. 2001;20(24):3875–89.
HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al., eds. Chapter 6: choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 60 (updated July2019). Cochrane, 2019. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
33.
EggerMDavey SmithGSchneiderMMinderC.Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.
O’ConnorAM.Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25–30.
36.
BoulwareLEEphraimPLAmelingJ, et al. Effectiveness of informational decision aids and a live donor financial assistance program on pursuit of live kidney transplants in African American hemodialysis patients. BMC Nephrol. 2018;19(1):107.
37.
BrennerATHoffmanRMcWilliamsA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening in vulnerable patients: promoting informed and shared decisions. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(4):454–62.
38.
DiefenbachMABenedictCMillerSM, et al. Examining the impact of a multimedia intervention on treatment decision-making among newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients: results from a nationwide RCT. Transl Behav Med. 2018;8(6):876–86.
39.
HoffmanASLowensteinLMKamathGR, et al. An entertainment-education colorectal cancer screening decision aid for African American patients: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 2017;123(8):1401–8.
40.
IbrahimSABlumMLeeG-C, et al. Effect of a decision aid on access to total knee replacement for Black patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(1):e164225.
41.
Jibaja-WeissMLVolkRJGranchiTS, et al. Entertainment education for breast cancer surgery decisions: a randomized trial among patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(1):41–8.
42.
JimenezMEDuRivageNEBezpalkoO, et al. A pilot randomized trial of a video patient decision aid to facilitate early intervention referrals from primary care. Clin Pediatr. 2017;56(3):268–77.
KuppermannMPenaSBishopJT, et al. Effect of enhanced information, values clarification, and removal of financial barriers on use of prenatal genetic testing: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312(12):1210–7.
45.
LeporeSJWolfRLBaschCE, et al. Informed decision making about prostate cancer testing in predominantly immigrant black men: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Behav Med. 2012;44(3):320–30.
46.
MarteauTMMannEPrevostAT, et al. Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial. BMJ. 2010;340:c2138.
47.
MillerDPJrSpanglerJGCaseLDGoffDCJrSinghSPignoneMP.Effectiveness of a web-based colorectal cancer screening patient decision aid: a randomized controlled trial in a mixed-literacy population. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):608–15.
48.
MillerDPJrDenizard-ThompsonNWeaverKE, et al. Effect of a digital health intervention on receipt of colorectal cancer screening in vulnerable patients: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(8):550–7.
49.
MyersREDaskalakisCCocroftJ, et al. Preparing African-American men in community primary care practices to decide whether or not to have prostate cancer screening. J Natl Med Assoc. 2005;97(8):1143–54.
50.
RisingKLHollanderJESchafferJT, et al. Effectiveness of a decision aid in potentially vulnerable patients: a secondary analysis of the chest pain choice multicenter randomized trial. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1):69–78.
51.
RuffinMTIVFettersMDJimboM.Preference-based electronic decision aid to promote colorectal cancer screening: results of a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2007;45(4):267–73.
52.
SchroyPCIIIEmmonsKPetersE, et al. The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(1):93–107.
53.
SmithSKTrevenaLSimpsonJMBarrattANutbeamDMcCafferyKJ.A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;341:c5370.
54.
StreetRLJrVoigtBGeyerCJrManningTSwansonGP.Increasing patient involvement in choosing treatment for early breast cancer. Cancer. 1995;76(11):2275–85.
55.
TaylorKLDavisJLIIITurnerRO, et al. Educating African American men about the prostate cancer screening dilemma: a randomized intervention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(11):2179–88.
56.
TrevenaLJIrwigLBarrattA.Randomized trial of a self-administered decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2008;15(2):76–82.
57.
VinaERRichardsonDMedvedevaEKent KwohCCollierAIbrahimSA.Does a patient-centered educational intervention affect African-American access to knee replacement? A randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(8):1755–64.
58.
VolkRJJibaja-WeissMLHawleyST, et al. Entertainment education for prostate cancer screening: a randomized trial among primary care patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):482–9.
59.
WilliamsRMDavisKMLutaG, et al. Fostering informed decisions: a randomized controlled trial assessing the impact of a decision aid among men registered to undergo mass screening for prostate cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91(3):329–36.
60.
WolfAMNasserJFWolfAMSchorlingJB.The impact of informed consent on patient interest in prostate-specific antigen screening. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(12):1333–6.
61.
AlegriaMNakashOJohnsonK, et al. Effectiveness of the DECIDE interventions on shared decision making and perceived quality of care in behavioral health with multicultural patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75(4):325–35.
62.
BoulwareLEEphraimPLHill-BriggsF, et al. Hypertension self-management in socially disadvantaged African Americans: the Achieving Blood Pressure Control Together (ACT) randomized comparative effectiveness trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(1):142–52.
63.
ChanECYMcFallSLByrdTL, et al. A community-based intervention to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening among Hispanic American men changed knowledge and role preferences: a cluster RCT. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(2):e44–51.
64.
CooperLARoterDLCarsonKA, et al. A randomized trial to improve patient-centered care and hypertension control in underserved primary care patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(11):1297–304.
65.
GabelPEdwardsAKirkegaardPLarsenMBAndersenB.The LEAD trial—the effectiveness of a decision aid on decision making among citizens with lower educational attainment who have not participated in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening in Denmark: a randomised controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(2):359–68.
66.
GustafsonDHHawkinsRPingreeS, et al. Effect of computer support on younger women with breast cancer. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(7):435–45.
67.
HeislerMChoiHPalmisanoG, et al. Comparison of community health worker-led diabetes medication decision-making support for low-income Latino and African American adults with diabetes using e-health tools versus print materials: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(10 suppl):S13–22.
68.
KripalaniSSharmaJJusticeE, et al. Low-literacy interventions to promote discussion of prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(2):83–90.
69.
KrishnamurtiLRossDSinhaC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of a web-based patient decision aid for therapeutic options for sickle cell disease: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(12):e14462.
70.
RoterDLErbyLHRimalRN, et al. Empowering women’s prenatal communication: does literacy matter?J Health Commun. 2015;20(suppl 2):60–8.
71.
SinghJAFraenkelLGreenC, et al. Individualized decision aid for diverse women with lupus nephritis (IDEA-WON): a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2019;16(5):e1002800.
72.
SudoreRLSchillingerDKatenMT, et al. Engaging eiverse English- and Spanish-speaking older adults in advance care planning: the PREPARE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1616–25.
73.
VolandesAEPaasche-OrlowMKBarryMJ, et al. Video decision support tool for advance care planning in dementia: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;338:b2159.
74.
MuscatDMSmithJMacO, et al. Addressing Health Literacy in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Med Decis Making. Published online May29, 2021. doi:10.1177/0272989X211011101
75.
BerkmanNSheridanSLDonahueKEHalpernDJ.Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2014;155(2):97–107.
76.
DewaltDABerkmanNDSheridanSLohrKNPignoneMP.Literacy and health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(12):1228–39.
77.
HawleySTLantzPMJanzNK, et al. Factors associated with patient involvement in surgical treatment decision making for breast cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(3):387–95.
78.
WillemsSDe MaesschalckSDeveugeleMDereseADe MaeseneerJ.Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor-patient communication: does it make a difference?Patient Educ Couns. 2005;56(2):139–46.
79.
SiminoffLAGrahamGCGordonNH.Cancer communication patterns and the influence of patient characteristics: disparities in information-giving and affective behaviors. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;62(3):355–60.
80.
RichardsonAAllenJAXiaoHValloneD.Effects of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status on health information-seeking, confidence, and trust. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012;23(4):1477–93.
81.
JacobsWAmutaAOJeonKC.Health information seeking in the digital age: An analysis of health information seeking behavior among US adults. Cogent Soc Sci. 2017;3(1):327.
82.
Senate and House of Representatives. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 2010.
83.
TrevenaLShepherdHLBonnerC, et al. Shared decision making in Australia in 2017. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017;123–124:17–20.
84.
Great Britain Department of Health. Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS. London: Stationery Office; 2010.
85.
ElwynGO’ConnorAStaceyD, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.
86.
SepuchaKRAbhyankarPHoffmanAS, et al. Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(5):380–8.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
