Do personal stories make patient decision aids more effective? A critical review of theory and evidence

Hilary L Bekker, Anna E Winterbottom, Phyllis Butow, Amanda J Dillard, Deb Feldman-Stewart, Floyd J Fowler, Maria L Jibaja-Weiss, Victoria A Shaffer, Robert J Volk, Hilary L Bekker, Anna E Winterbottom, Phyllis Butow, Amanda J Dillard, Deb Feldman-Stewart, Floyd J Fowler, Maria L Jibaja-Weiss, Victoria A Shaffer, Robert J Volk

Abstract

Background: Patient decision aids support people to make informed decisions between healthcare options. Personal stories provide illustrative examples of others' experiences and are seen as a useful way to communicate information about health and illness. Evidence indicates that providing information within personal stories affects the judgments and values people have, and the choices they make, differentially from facts presented in non-narrative prose. It is unclear if including narrative communications within patient decision aids enhances their effectiveness to support people to make informed decisions.

Methods: A survey of primary empirical research employing a systematic review method investigated the effect of patient decision aids with or without a personal story on people's healthcare judgements and decisions. Searches were carried out between 2005-2012 of electronic databases (Medline, PsycINFO), and reference lists of identified articles, review articles, and key authors. A narrative analysis described and synthesised findings.

Results: Of 734 citations identified, 11 were included describing 13 studies. All studies found participants' judgments and/or decisions differed depending on whether or not their decision aid included a patient story. Knowledge was equally facilitated when the decision aids with and without stories had similar information content. Story-enhanced aids may help people recall information over time and/or their motivation to engage with health information. Personal stories affected both "system 1" (e.g., less counterfactual reasoning, more emotional reactions and perceptions) and "system 2" (e.g., more perceived deliberative decision making, more stable evaluations over time) decision-making strategies. Findings exploring associations with narrative communications, decision quality measures, and different levels of literacy and numeracy were mixed. The pattern of findings was similar for both experimental and real-world studies.

Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence that adding personal stories to decision aids increases their effectiveness to support people's informed decision making. More rigorous research is required to elicit evidence about the type of personal story that a) encourages people to make more reasoned decisions, b) discourages people from making choices based on another's values, and c) motivates people equally to engage with healthcare resources.

References

    1. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2011. Art. No.: CD001431. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3.
    1. Bekker HL. The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: do checklists affect the validity of informed choice interventions? Patient Educ Couns. 2010;13:357–364. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.002.
    1. Sepucha K, Thomson R, Borkhoff CM, Lally J, Levin CA, Matlock DD, Ng CJ, Ropka M, Stacey D, Joseph-Williams N, Wills CE. In: 2012 Update of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) collaboration’s background document. Chapter L. Volk R & Llewellyn-Thomas H, editor. 2012. Establishing effectiveness.
    1. Winterbottom AE, Bekker HL, Conner MT, Mooney A. Does narrative information bias individual’s decision making? A systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2008;13(12):2079–2088. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.037.
    1. Butow P, Fowler J, Ziebland S. In: IPDAS International Collaboration Document. A O’Connor, Llewellyn-Thomas, H. & Stacey, D, editor. 2005. Section 5: Using Personal Stories. Retrieved from (Accessed on 01/01/2010)
    1. Murray M. In: Qualitative research in psychology: expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Camic PM, Rhodes JE, Yardley L, editor. Washington DC, USA: American Psychological Association; 2003. Chapter 6. Narrative psychology and narrative analysis.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Hurwitz B. Narrative based medicine: Why study narrative. BMJ. 1999;13:48–50.
    1. Hyden L-C. Illness and narrative. Sociol Health and Illn. 1997;13:48–69.
    1. Bury M. Illness narratives: fact or fiction? Sociol Health and Illn. 2001;13:263–285. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.00252.
    1. Khangura S, Bennett C, Stacey D, O’Connor AM. Personal stories in publicly available patient decision aids. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;13:456–464. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.035.
    1. Butow PN, Kirsten LT, Ussher JM, Wain GV, Sandoval M, Hobbs K, Hodgkinson K, Stenlake A. What is the ideal support group? Views of Australian people with cancer and their carers. Psychooncology. 2007;13(11):1039–1045. doi: 10.1002/pon.1172.
    1. Morton RL, Howard K, Webster AC, Snelling P. Patient Information about Options for Treatment (PINOT): a prospective national study of information given to incident CKD stage 5 patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;13:1266–1274. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfq555.
    1. Entwistle VA, France EF, Wyke S, Jepson R, Hunt K, Ziebland S, Thompson A. How information about other people’s personal experiences can help with healthcare decision-making: a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;13(3):e291–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.05.014.
    1. Hinyard LJ, Kreuter MW. Using narratives communication as a tool for health behaviour change: a conceptual, theoretical and empirical overview. Health Educ Behav. 2007;13:777–792. doi: 10.1177/1090198106291963.
    1. Bandura A. In: Annals of child development: Six theories of child development. Vasta R, editor. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1989. Chapter 6: Social cognitive theory; pp. 1–60.
    1. Shaffer VA, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. All stories are not alike: A purpose-, content-, and valence-based taxonomy of patient narratives in decision aids. Med Decis Making. 2013;13:4–13. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12463266.
    1. Wise M, Yeob Han J, Shaw B, Mctavish F, Gustafson DH. Effects of using online narrative and didactic information on healthcare participation for breast cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;13:348–356. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.009.
    1. Volk RJ, Jibaba-Weiss ML, Hawley ST, Kneuper S, Spann SJ, Miles BJ, Hyman DJ. Entertainment education for prostate cancer screening: a randomized trial among primary care patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;13:482–489. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.033.
    1. Kreuter MW, Holmes K, Alcaraz K. Comparing narrative and informational videos to increase mammography in low-income African American women. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;13:S6–S14.
    1. Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ. Utilizing Computerized Entertainment Education in the Development of Decision Aids for Lower Literate and Naïve Computer Users'. J Health Commun. 2007;13:681–697. doi: 10.1080/10810730701624356.
    1. Ubel PA, Jepson C, Baron J. The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids: Effects on treatment choice. Med Decis Making. 2001;13(1):60–68. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0102100108.
    1. Kahneman D, Frederick S. In: Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Gilovich, Griffin, & Kahneman, editor. Cambridge University Press; 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment; pp. 49–81.
    1. Stanovich KE. Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Psychology Press; 1999.
    1. Slovic P, Peters E. Risk Perception and Affect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2006;13:322–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00461.x.
    1. Chaiken S, Maheswaran D. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;13:460–473.
    1. Habermas T, Diel V. The Emotional Impact of Loss Narratives: Event Severity and Narrative Perspectives. Emotion. 2010;13(3):312–323.
    1. Ito TA, Larsen JT, Smith NK, Cacioppo JT. Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;13(4):887–900.
    1. Dillard AJ, Fagerlin A, Zigmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Narratives that address affective forecasting errors reduce perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Soc Sci Med. 2010;13:45–52. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.038.
    1. Loewenstein G. Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision-making. Health Psychol. 2005;13(Suppl.4):S49–S56.
    1. Sherif M, Hovland CI. Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1961.
    1. Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations. 1954;13:117–40. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202.
    1. McClelland AGR, Pring L. Implicit and explicit memory: On the representation of information in the memory system. Meeting of the Experimental Psychology Society, Reading. 1988.
    1. Mandler JM, Johnson NS. Remembrance of things parsed: story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychol. 1977;13:111–51. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(77)90006-8.
    1. Schank RC, Berman TR. In: Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations. Green MC, Strange JJ, Brock TC, editor. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2002. The pervasive role of stories in knowledge and action; pp. 287–313.
    1. Petty RE, Cacioppo J. In: Advances in experimental social psychology. Berkowitz L, editor. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion; pp. 123–205.
    1. Price V, Czilli EJ. Modeling patterns of news recognition and recall. J Commun. 1996;13(2):55–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01474.x.
    1. Sanfrey A, Hastie R. Does evidence presentation format affect judgment? An experimental evaluation of displays of data for judgments. Psychol Sci. 1998;13(2):99–103. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00018.
    1. Connor M, Norman P. Predicting health behaviour: research and practice with social cognition models. 2. Buckingham, UK, Open University Press; 2005.
    1. Green MC, Brock TC. The role of transformational in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J Pers SocPsychol. 2000;13:701–721.
    1. de Wit JBF, Das E, Vet R. What works best: objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychol. 2008;13:110–115.
    1. Betsch C, Ulshofer C, Renkewitz F, Betsch T. The influence of narrative v. statistical information on perceiving vaccination risks. Med Decis Making. 2011;13:742–753. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11400419.
    1. Feldman-Stewart D, Brennenstuh S, McIssac K. A systematic review of information in decision aids. Health Expectations. 2006;13:46–61.
    1. Clement S, Ibrahim S, Crichton N, Wolf M, Rowlands G. Complex interventions to improve the health of people with limited literacy: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;13:340–351. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.01.008.
    1. Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA. Reducing the influence of anaecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making. 2005;13:398–405. doi: 10.1177/0272989X05278931.
    1. Shaffer VA, Tomek S, Hulsey L. The effect of narrative information in a publicly available patient decision aid for early-stage breast cancer. Health Commun. 2013. Feb 5. [epub ahead of print]
    1. Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Granchi TS. Entertainment education for breast cancer surgery decisions: A randomized trial among patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;13:41–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.009.
    1. Winterbottom AE, Bekker HL, Conner M, Mooney A. Patient stories about their dialysis experience biases others’ choices regardless of doctor’s advice: an experimental study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;13(1):325–331.
    1. Volandes AE, Paasche-Orlow MK, Barry MJ, Gillick MR, Minaker KL, Chang Y, Cook EF, Abbo ED, El-Jawahri A, Mitchell SL. Video decision support tool for advance care planning in dementia: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;13:b2159. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2159.
    1. Volandes AE, Mitchell SL, Gillick MR, Chang Y, Paasche-Orlow MK. Using video images to improve the accuracy of surrogate decision making: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2009;13:575–580. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2009.05.006.
    1. Volandes AE, Ferguson LA, Davis AD, Hull NC, Green MJ, Chang Y, Deep K, Paasche-Orlow MK. Assessing End-of-Life Preferences for Advanced Dementia in Rural Patients Using an Educational Video: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Palliat Med. 2011;13(2):169–177. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2010.0299.
    1. El-Jawahri A, Podgurski LM, Eichler AF, Plotkin SR, Temel JS, Mitchell SL, Chang Y, Barry MJ, Volandes AE. Use of video to facilitate end-of-life discussions with patients with cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;13:305–311. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.7502.
    1. Vaughan PW, Rogers EM. A staged model of communication effects: evidence from an entertainment-education radio soap opera in Tanzania. J Health Commun. 2000;13:203–227. doi: 10.1080/10810730050131398.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅