Abstract
Background Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment.
Purpose 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.
Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL
Study Selection We included articles that described randomized trials of one or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods.
Data Extraction Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation.
Data Synthesis Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-disgruent choices (risk difference -0.04 95% CI [-0.06 to -0.02], p<.001) and decisional regret (standardized mean difference -0.20 95% CI [-0.29 to -0.11], p<0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (Chi-squared(2)=9.25, p=.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (Chi-squared(2)=6.08, p=.05).
Limitations Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories.
Conclusions 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) FDN-148426 (PI Witteman). HOW receives salary support from Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Human-Centred Digital Health and received salary support during this study from a Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante (FRQS) Research Scholar Junior 2 Career Award. The CIHR, Canada Research Chairs program, and FRQS had no role in determining the study design, the plans for data collection or analysis, the decision to publish, nor the preparation of this manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A (systematic review)
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Full data are available in the appendices.