Effect of Adding a Values Clarification Exercise to a Decision Aid on Heart Disease Prevention: a Randomized Trial
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Background: Experts have called for the inclusion of values clarification (VC) exercises in decision aids (DAs) as a means of improving their effectiveness, but little research has examined the effects of such exercises.
Objective: To determine whether adding a VC exercise to a DA on heart disease prevention improves decision-making outcomes.
Design: Randomized trial.
Setting: UNC Decision Support Laboratory.
Patients: Adults ages 40 to 80 with no history of cardiovascular disease.
Intervention: A Web-based heart disease prevention DA with or without a VC exercise.
Measurements: Pre- and postintervention decisional conflict and intent to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) risk and postintervention self-efficacy and perceived values concordance.
Results: The authors enrolled 137 participants (62 in DA; 75 in DA + VC with moderate decisional conflict (DA 2.4; DA + VC 2.5) and no baseline differences among groups. After the interventions, they found no clinically or statistically significant differences between groups in decisional conflict (DA 1.8; DA + VC 1.9; absolute difference VC-DA 0.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.1 to 0.3), intent to reduce CHD risk (DA 98%; DA + VC 100%; absolute difference VC-DA: 2%, 95% CI: -0.02% to 5%), perceived values concordance (DA 95%; DA + VC 92%; absolute difference VC-DA -3%, 95% CI: -11% to +5%), or self-efficacy for risk reduction (DA 97%; DA + VC 92%; absolute difference VC-DA -5%, 95% CI: -13% to +3%). However, DA + VC tended to change some decisions about risk reduction strategies.
Limitations: Use of a hypothetical scenario; ceiling effects for some outcomes.
Conclusions: Adding a VC intervention to a DA did not further improve decision-making outcomes in a population of highly educated and motivated adults responding to scenario-based questions. Work is needed to determine the effects of VC on more diverse populations and more distal outcomes.
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.
Stacey D, Lewis K, Smith M, Carley M, Volk R, Douglas E Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024; 1:CD001431.
PMID: 38284415 PMC: 10823577. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub6.
Gultzow T, Smit E, Crutzen R, Jolani S, Hoving C, Dirksen C J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24(7):e34246.
PMID: 35838773 PMC: 9338418. DOI: 10.2196/34246.
Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Witteman H, Ndjaboue R, Vaisson G, Chipenda Dansokho S, Arnold B, Bridges J Med Decis Making. 2021; 41(7):801-820.
PMID: 34565196 PMC: 8482297. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211037946.
Gultzow T, Smit E, Hudales R, Knapen V, Rademakers J, Dirksen C JMIR Res Protoc. 2020; 9(12):e21772.
PMID: 33320096 PMC: 7772073. DOI: 10.2196/21772.
Hazlewood G, Marshall D, Barber C, Li L, Barnabe C, Bykerk V Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020; 14:829-838.
PMID: 32546977 PMC: 7244245. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S221897.