TY - JOUR
T1 - Balancing the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids
T2 - An updated review
AU - Abhyankar, Purva
AU - Volk, Robert J.
AU - Blumenthal-Barby, Jennifer
AU - Bravo, Paulina
AU - Buchholz, Angela
AU - Ozanne, Elissa
AU - Vidal, Dale Colins
AU - Col, Nananda
AU - Stalmeier, Peep
N1 - Funding Information:
Publication of this supplement was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation and by the University of Stirling (Abhyankar). Administrative and editorial support for this supplement was also provided by The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. This article has been published as part of BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making Volume 13 Supplement 2, 2013: The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s Quality Dimensions: Theoretical Rationales, Current Evidence, and Emerging Issues. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www. biomedcentral.com/bmcmedinformdecismak/supplements/13/S2.
PY - 2013/11/29
Y1 - 2013/11/29
N2 - Background: Standards for patient decision aids require that information and options be presented in a balanced manner; this requirement is based on the argument that balanced presentation is essential to foster informed decision making. If information is presented in an incomplete/non-neutral manner, it can stimulate cognitive biases that can unduly affect individuals' knowledge, perceptions of risks and benefits, and, ultimately, preferences. However, there is little clarity about what constitutes balance, and how it can be determined and enhanced. We conducted a literature review to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to balancing the presentation of information and options. Methods. A literature search related to patient decision aids and balance was conducted on Medline, using MeSH terms and PubMed; this search supplemented the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration's review of patient decision aids trials. Only English language articles relevant to patient decision making and addressing the balance of information and options were included. All members of the team independently screened clusters of articles; uncertainties were resolved by seeking review by another member. The team then worked in sub-groups to extract and synthesise data on theory, definitions, and evidence reported in these studies. Results: A total of 40 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, six explained the rationale for balancing the presentation of information and options. Twelve defined "balance"; the definition of "balance" that emerged is as follows: "The complete and unbiased presentation of the relevant options and the information about those options - in content and in format - in a way that enables individuals to process this information without bias". Ten of the 40 articles reported assessing the balance of the relevant decision aid. All 10 did so exclusively from the users' or patients' perspective, using a five-point Likert-type scale. Presenting information in a side-by-side display form was associated with more respondents (ranging from 70% to 96%) judging the information as "balanced". Conclusion: There is a need for comparative studies investigating different ways to improve and measure balance in the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids.
AB - Background: Standards for patient decision aids require that information and options be presented in a balanced manner; this requirement is based on the argument that balanced presentation is essential to foster informed decision making. If information is presented in an incomplete/non-neutral manner, it can stimulate cognitive biases that can unduly affect individuals' knowledge, perceptions of risks and benefits, and, ultimately, preferences. However, there is little clarity about what constitutes balance, and how it can be determined and enhanced. We conducted a literature review to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to balancing the presentation of information and options. Methods. A literature search related to patient decision aids and balance was conducted on Medline, using MeSH terms and PubMed; this search supplemented the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration's review of patient decision aids trials. Only English language articles relevant to patient decision making and addressing the balance of information and options were included. All members of the team independently screened clusters of articles; uncertainties were resolved by seeking review by another member. The team then worked in sub-groups to extract and synthesise data on theory, definitions, and evidence reported in these studies. Results: A total of 40 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, six explained the rationale for balancing the presentation of information and options. Twelve defined "balance"; the definition of "balance" that emerged is as follows: "The complete and unbiased presentation of the relevant options and the information about those options - in content and in format - in a way that enables individuals to process this information without bias". Ten of the 40 articles reported assessing the balance of the relevant decision aid. All 10 did so exclusively from the users' or patients' perspective, using a five-point Likert-type scale. Presenting information in a side-by-side display form was associated with more respondents (ranging from 70% to 96%) judging the information as "balanced". Conclusion: There is a need for comparative studies investigating different ways to improve and measure balance in the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84889676102&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84889676102&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S6
DO - 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S6
M3 - Article
C2 - 24625214
AN - SCOPUS:84889676102
SN - 1472-6947
VL - 13
JO - BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
JF - BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
IS - SUPPL. 2
M1 - S6
ER -