Clarifying values: an updated review

Angela Fagerlin, Michael Pignone, Purva Abhyankar, Nananda Col, Deb Feldman-Stewart, Teresa Gavaruzzi, Jennifer Kryworuchko, Carrie A Levin, Arwen H Pieterse, Valerie Reyna, Anne Stiggelbout, Laura D Scherer, Celia Wills, Holly O Witteman, Angela Fagerlin, Michael Pignone, Purva Abhyankar, Nananda Col, Deb Feldman-Stewart, Teresa Gavaruzzi, Jennifer Kryworuchko, Carrie A Levin, Arwen H Pieterse, Valerie Reyna, Anne Stiggelbout, Laura D Scherer, Celia Wills, Holly O Witteman

Abstract

Background: Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids.

Methods: Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary.

Results: Values clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single "best" practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect.

Conclusions: Values clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness.

References

    1. Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, Thomson R, Barratt A, Barry M, Bernstein S, Butow P, Clarke A, Entwistle V, Feldman-Stewart D, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Moumjid N, Mulley A, Ruland C, Sepucha K, Sykes A, Whelan T. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;13:417. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. de Vries M, Fagerlin A, Witteman H, Scherer LD. Combining deliberation and intuition in patient decision support. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;13(2):154–60. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.11.016.
    1. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Crump RT. Decision support for patients: values clarification and preference elicitation. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;13(1 suppl):50S–79S. doi: 10.1177/1077558712461182.
    1. Bekker HL. The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: do checklists damage the quality of informed choice interventions? Patient Educ Couns. 2010;13:357–364. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.002.
    1. Durand MA, Stiel M, Boivin J, Elwyn G. Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;13:125–135. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.12.004.
    1. O’Connor AM, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Dolan J, Kupperman M, Wills C. Clarifying and expressing values. 2005 Original IPDAS Collaboration Background Document.
    1. Pieterse AH, De Vries M, Kunneman M, Stiggelbout AM, Feldman-Stewart D. Theory-informed design of values clarification methods: A cognitive psychological perspective on patient treatment decision making. Soc Sci Med. 2013;13:156–163.
    1. Witteman H, Scherer L, Gavaruzzi T, Pieterse A, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Exe N, Kahn V, Ubel P, Feldman-Stewart D, Col N, Fagerlin A. Values Clarification Exercises: A Systematic Review. Presented at Society for Medical Decision Making Annual Meeting, Advanced Designing of Evidence-Based Patient Decision Aids, October 20, 2012. Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
    1. Llewellyn-Thomas H. In: Shared Decision Making in Health Care: Achieving Evidence Based Patient Choice. 2. Edwards GEA, editor. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. Values clarification; pp. 123–133.
    1. Fischhoff B. Value elicitation - is there anything in there? Am Psychol. 1991;13:835–847.
    1. Simon D, Krawczyk DC, Bleicher A, Holyoak KJ. The transience of constructed preferences. J Behav Decis Mak. 2008;13:1–14. doi: 10.1002/bdm.575.
    1. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Van Manen L, Svenson O. Patient-focussed decision-making in early-stage prostate cancer: insights from a cognitively based decision aid. Health Expect. 2004;13:126–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00271.x.
    1. Betsch T, Glockner A. Intuition in Judgment and Decision Making: Extensive Thinking Without Effort. Psychol Inq. 2010;13:279–294. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.517737.
    1. Wilson TD, Schooler JW. Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;13:181–192.
    1. Reyna VF. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;13:850–865. doi: 10.1177/0272989X08327066.
    1. Fraenkel L, Peters E, Charpentier P, Olsen B, Errante L, Schoen RT, Reyna V. Decision tool to improve the quality of care in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012;13:977–985.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren