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

Peter H Schwartz, Kieran C O'Doherty, Colene Bentley, Karen K Schmidt, Michael M Burgess, Peter H Schwartz, Kieran C O'Doherty, Colene Bentley, Karen K Schmidt, Michael M Burgess

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.

Keywords: colorectal cancer screening; decision aids; public deliberation; risk communication; shared decision-making.

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Public deliberation recruitment summary.

References

    1. Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al.. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.
    1. Syrowatka A, Kromker D, Meguerditchian AN, Tamblyn R. Features of computer-based decision aids: systematic review, thematic synthesis, and meta-analyses. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2016;18(1):e20.
    1. O’Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, et al.. A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;33(3):267–79.
    1. O’Connor AM. From imitation to creation: the evolution of a research program in decision support. In: Edwards N, Roelofs S, eds. Developing a Program of Research: An Essential Process for Successful Research Career. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Bright Wing Media.
    1. O’Connor AM, Drake ER, Fiset V, Graham ID, Laupacis A, Tugwell P. The Ottawa patient decision aids. Eff Clin Pract. 1999;2(4):163–70.
    1. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, et al.. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006; 333(7565):417.
    1. International Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Collaboration—resources. Available from:
    1. National Quality Forum. National standards for the certification of patient decision aids: final report. Available from:
    1. Pope TM. Certified patient decision aids: solving persistent problems with informed consent law. J Law Med Ethics. 2017;45(1):12–40.
    1. Washington Health Care Authority. Patient decision aids (PDAs). Available from:
    1. Lee EO, Emanuel EJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N Engl J Med. 2012;368(1):6–8.
    1. Trevena L, Zikmund-Fisher B, Edwards A, et al.. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: A risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13(Supplement 2): S7.
    1. Berry DC. Communicating risk of medication side effects: an empirical evaluation of EU recommended terminology. Psychol Health Med. 2003;8(3):13.
    1. Peters E, Hart PS, Tusler M, Fraenkel L. Numbers matter to informed patient choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(4):430–42.
    1. Webster RK, Weinman J, Rubin GJ. How does the side-effect information in patient information leaflets influence peoples’ side-effect expectations? A cross-sectional national survey of 18- to 65-year-olds in England. Health Expect. 2017;20(6):1411–20.
    1. Smith LE, Webster RK, Rubin GJ. A systematic review of factors associated with side-effect expectations from medical interventions. Health Expect. 2020;23(4):731–58.
    1. Schwartz PH. Questioning the quantitative imperative decision aids, prevention, and the ethics of disclosure. Hastings Cent Rep. 2011;41(2):30–9.
    1. Zikmund-Fisher BJ. The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1, Suppl):37S–49S.
    1. McDonald H, Charles C, Gafni A. Assessing the conceptual clarity and evidence base of quality criteria/standards developed for evaluating decision aids. Health Expectations. 2014;17(2):232–43.
    1. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009;135(6):943–73.
    1. Nelson W, Reyna VF, Fagerlin A, Lipkus I, Peters E. Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice. Ann Behav Med. 2008;35(3):261–74.
    1. Nayak JG, Hartzler AL, Macleod LC, Izard JP, Dalkin BM, Gore JL. Relevance of graph literacy in the development of patient-centered communication tools. Patient Educ Counsel. 2016;99(3):448–54.
    1. Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):608–18.
    1. Reyna VF. How people make decisions that involve risk: a dual-processes approach. Curr Directions Psychol Sci. 2004;13(2):60–6.
    1. Gigerenzer G. Why heuristics work. Perspectives Psychol Sci. 2008;3(1):20–9.
    1. Reyna VF. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):850–65.
    1. Blalock SJ, Reyna VF. Using fuzzy-trace theory to understand and improve health judgments, decisions, and behaviors: a literature review. Health Psychol. 2016;35(8):781–92.
    1. Schneider CE. The Practice of Autonomy: Patients, Doctors, and Medical Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.
    1. Manson NC, O’Neill O. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
    1. O’Neill O. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
    1. Epstein RM, Alper BS, Quill TE. Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. JAMA. 2004;291(19):2359–66.
    1. Epstein RM, Korones DN, Quill TE. Withholding information from patients—when less is more. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):380–1.
    1. Gaster B, Edwards K, Trinidad SB, Gallagher TH, Braddock CH, III. Patient-centered discussions about prostate cancer screening: a real-world approach. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(10):661–5.
    1. Schwartz PH, Meslin EM. The ethics of information: absolute risk reduction and patient understanding of screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(6):867–70.
    1. Fagerlin A, Pignone M, Abhyankar P, et al.. Clarifying values: an updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S8.
    1. Witteman HO, Gavaruzzi T, Scherer LD, et al.. Effects of design features of explicit values clarification methods: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(6):760–76.
    1. Witteman HO, Scherer LD, Gavaruzzi T, et al.. Design features of explicit values clarification methods: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(4):453–71.
    1. Nelson WL, Han PK, Fagerlin A, Stefanek M, Ubel PA. Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: a call for conceptual clarity. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):609–18.
    1. Wilson TD, Lisle DJ, Schooler JW, Hodges SD, Klaaren KJ, LaFleur SJ. Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1993;19(3):331–9.
    1. Wilson TD, Schooler JW. Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;60(2):181–92.
    1. O’Doherty KC. Public Engagement and Emerging Technologies. Vancouver: UBS Press; 2012.
    1. O’Doherty KC, Gauvin F-P, Grogan C, Friedman W. Implementing a public deliberative forum. Hastings Cent Rep. 2012;42(2):20–3.
    1. Gastil J. Designing public deliberation at the intersection of science and public policy. In: The Oxford handbook of the Science of Science Communication. 2017. p 233–42. New York: Oxford University Press.
    1. Blacksher E, Diebel A, Forest P-G, Goold SD, Abelson J. What is public deliberation? Hastings Cent Rep. 2012;42(2):14–17.
    1. 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.
    1. Hamlett PW. Technology theory and deliberative democracy. Sci Technol Hum Val. 2003;28(1):112–40.
    1. Abelson J, Blacksher E, Li K, Boesveld S, Goold S. Public deliberation in health policy and bioethics: mapping an emerging, interdisciplinary field. J Public Deliberation. 2013;9(1):jdd157.
    1. Burgess MM. Public consultation in ethics: an experiment in representative ethics. J Bioethical Inquiry. 2004;1(1):4–13.
    1. Burgess MM. From ‘trust us’ to participatory governance: deliberative publics and science policy. Public Underst Sci. 2014;23(1):48–52.
    1. Burgess MM, Longstaff H, O’Doherty K. Assessing deliberative design of public input on british columbia biobanks. In: Dodds S, Ankeny RA, eds. Big Picture Bioethics: Developing Democratic Policy in Contested Domains. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International; 2016. p 263–78.
    1. Hawkes N. “Citizens’ jury” disagrees over whether screening leaflet should put reassurance before accuracy. BMJ. 2012;345:e8047.
    1. Baena-Canada JM, Luque-Ribelles V, Quilez-Cutillas A, et al.. 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.
    1. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2019.
    1. Schwartz PH, Imperiale TF, Perkins SM, Schmidt KK, Althouse S, Rawl SM. Impact of including quantitative information in a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(4):726–34.
    1. Schwartz PH, Perkins SM, Schmidt KK, Muriello PF, Althouse S, Rawl SM. Providing quantitative information and a nudge to undergo stool testing in a colorectal cancer screening decision aid: a randomized clinical trial. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(6):688–702.
    1. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, et al.. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564–75.
    1. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al.. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017;153(1):307–23.
    1. Klabunde CN, Joseph DA, King JB, White A, Plescia M. Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use—United States, 2012. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62(44):881–8.
    1. Zauber AG, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Wilschut J, van Ballegooijen M, Kuntz KM. Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(9):659–69.
    1. Heitman SJ, Hilsden RJ, Au F, Dowden S, Manns BJ. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk North Americans: an economic evaluation. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11):e1000370.
    1. Schwartz PH, Imperiale TF, Perkins SM, et al.. Using numbers in a decision aid to describe risks and benefits of colorectal cancer screening options. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). 2020.
    1. Schroy PC, III, Emmons K, Peters E, et al.. The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(1):93–107.
    1. Smith SK, Trevena L, Simpson JM, Barratt A, Nutbeam D, McCaffery KJ. A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;341:c5370.
    1. Eddy D. Designing a practice policy: standards, guidelines, and options. JAMA 1990;263(22):3077, 3081, 3084.
    1. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):672–80.
    1. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, 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.
    1. McNaughton CD, Cavanaugh KL, Kripalani S, Rothman RL, Wallston KA. Validation of a short, 3-item version of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(8):932–6.
    1. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R. Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(5):462–8.
    1. Elwyn G, Miron-Shatz T. Deliberation before determination: the definition and evaluation of good decision making. Health Expect. 2010;13(2):139–47.
    1. Volk RJ, 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. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S1.
    1. Ubel PA, Abernethy AP, Zafar SY. Full disclosure—out-of-pocket costs as side effects. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(16):1484–6.
    1. Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, et al.. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S7.
    1. US Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau releases new educational attainment data. Release number CB20-TPS.09. Available from:
    1. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):741–4.
    1. Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):745–8.
    1. Feldman-Stewart D, O’Brien MA, Clayman ML, et al.. Providing information about options in patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S4.
    1. US Census Bureau. Quick Facts: Indiana, US. Available from:

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever