Layperson Views About the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation

Overview

Journal Med Decis Making

Publisher Sage Publications

Date 2021 Apr 5

PMID 33813928

Citations 8

Authors

Peter H Schwartz

Kieran C ODoherty

Colene Bentley

Karen K Schmidt

Michael M Burgess

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: We carried out the first public deliberation to elicit lay input regarding guidelines for the design and evaluation of decision aids, focusing on the example of colorectal ("colon") cancer screening.

Methods: A random, demographically stratified sample of 28 laypeople convened for 4 days, during which they were informed about key issues regarding colon cancer, screening tests, risk communication, and decision aids. Participants then deliberated in small and large group sessions about the following: 1) What information should be included in all decision aids for colon screening? 2) What risk information should be in a decision aid and how should risk information be presented? 3) What makes a screening decision a good one (reasonable or legitimate)? 4) What makes a decision aid and the advice it provides trustworthy? With the help of a trained facilitator, the deliberants formulated recommendations, and a vote was held on each to identify support and alternative views.

Results: Twenty-one recommendations ("deliberative conclusions") were strongly supported. Some conclusions matched current recommendations, such as that decision aids should be available for use with and without providers present (conclusions 1-4) and should support informed choice (conclusion 9). Some conclusions differed from current recommendations, at least in emphasis-for example, that decision aids should disclose cost of screening (conclusion 11) and should be kept simple and understandable (conclusion 14). Deliberants recommended that decision aids should disclose the baseline risk of getting colon cancer (conclusions 15, 17).

Limitations: Single location and medical decision.

Conclusions: Guidelines for design of decision aids should consider putting a greater focus on disclosing cost and keeping decision aids simple, and they possibly should recommend disclosing less extensive amounts of quantitative information than currently recommended.

Citing Articles

A 4-Site Public Deliberation Project on the Acceptability of Youth Self-Consent in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials: Assessment of Facilitator Fidelity to Key Principles.

Draucker C, Carrion A, Ott M, Hicks A, Knopf A JMIR Form Res. 2025; 9:e58451.

PMID: 39946717 PMC: 11888116. DOI: 10.2196/58451.

Research data use in a digital society: a deliberative public engagement.

McGrail K, Teng J, Bentley C, ODoherty K, Burgess M Int J Popul Data Sci. 2024; 9(1):2372.

PMID: 39620125 PMC: 11606539. DOI: 10.23889/ijpds.v9i1.2372.

Making the BEST decision-the BESTa project development, implementation and evaluation of a digital Decision Aid in Swedish cancer screening programmes- a description of a research project.

Fritzell K, Hedberg B, Woudstra A, Forsberg A, Sventelius M, Kottorp A PLoS One. 2023; 18(12):e0294332.

PMID: 38085710 PMC: 10715660. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294332.

Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.

Herrera D, van de Veerdonk W, Berhe N, Talboom S, van Loo M, Alejos A Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(15).

PMID: 37568683 PMC: 10417450. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15153867.

Adding epitope compatibility to deceased donor kidney allocation criteria: recommendations from a pan-Canadian online public deliberation.

Edwards L, Bentley C, Burgess M, Sapir-Pichhadze R, Hartell D, Keown P BMC Nephrol. 2023; 24(1):165.

PMID: 37296384 PMC: 10255937. DOI: 10.1186/s12882-023-03224-z.

References

Blalock S, Reyna V . Using fuzzy-trace theory to understand and improve health judgments, decisions, and behaviors: A literature review. Health Psychol. 2016; 35(8):781-792. PMC: 4979567. DOI: 10.1037/hea0000384. View

Hawkes N . "Citizens' jury" disagrees over whether screening leaflet should put reassurance before accuracy. BMJ. 2012; 345:e8047. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e8047. View

Street J, Duszynski K, Krawczyk S, Braunack-Mayer A . The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2014; 109:1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.005. View

Ubel P, Abernethy A, Zafar S . Full disclosure--out-of-pocket costs as side effects. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(16):1484-6. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1306826. View

Smith L, Webster R, James Rubin G . A systematic review of factors associated with side-effect expectations from medical interventions. Health Expect. 2020; 23(4):731-758. PMC: 7495066. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13059. View

Feldman-Stewart D, OBrien M, Clayman M, Davison B, Jimbo M, Labrecque M . Providing information about options in patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014; 13 Suppl 2:S4. PMC: 4042380. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S4. View

Schwartz P . Questioning the quantitative imperative: decision aids, prevention, and the ethics of disclosure. Hastings Cent Rep. 2011; 41(2):30-9. DOI: 10.1353/hcr.2011.0029. View

Baena-Canada J, Luque-Ribelles V, Quilez-Cutillas A, Rosado-Varela P, Benitez-Rodriguez E, Marquez-Calderon S . How a deliberative approach includes women in the decisions of screening mammography: a citizens' jury feasibility study in Andalusia, Spain. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(5):e019852. PMC: 5942446. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019852. View

OConnor A, Drake E, Fiset V, Graham I, Laupacis A, Tugwell P . The Ottawa patient decision aids. Eff Clin Pract. 1999; 2(4):163-70. View

10.

Trevena L, Zikmund-Fisher B, Edwards A, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M, Han P . Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014; 13 Suppl 2:S7. PMC: 4045391. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S7. View

11.

Gigerenzer G . Why Heuristics Work. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 3(1):20-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00058.x. View

12.

Burgess M . Public consultation in ethics: an experiment in representative ethics. J Bioeth Inq. 2005; 1(1):4-13. DOI: 10.1007/BF02448901. View

13.

Zikmund-Fisher B, Smith D, Ubel P, Fagerlin A . Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27(5):663-71. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07303824. View

14.

Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jankovic A, Derry H, Smith D . Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27(5):672-80. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07304449. View

15.

Nelson W, Reyna V, Fagerlin A, Lipkus I, Peters E . Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice. Ann Behav Med. 2008; 35(3):261-74. PMC: 3694344. DOI: 10.1007/s12160-008-9037-8. View

16.

Fagerlin A, Pignone M, Abhyankar P, Col N, Feldman-Stewart D, Gavaruzzi T . Clarifying values: an updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014; 13 Suppl 2:S8. PMC: 4044232. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S8. View

17.

Pope T . Certified Patient Decision Aids: Solving Persistent Problems with Informed Consent Law. J Law Med Ethics. 2017; 45(1):12-40. DOI: 10.1177/1073110517703097. View

18.

Volk R, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Stacey D, Elwyn G . Ten years of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration: evolution of the core dimensions for assessing the quality of patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014; 13 Suppl 2:S1. PMC: 4044280. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S1. View

19.

Elwyn G, OConnor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A . Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006; 333(7565):417. PMC: 1553508. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE. View

20.

Stacey D, Volk R . The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0. Med Decis Making. 2021; 41(7):729-733. PMC: 8474333. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211035681. View