PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 9, 2018BMJ Quality & Safety152 citationsOpen Access

Impact of decision aids used during clinical encounters on clinician outcomes and consultation length: a systematic review

View Full Paper
CDClaudia C. DoblerMSManuel Anguita SánchezMGMichael R. Gionfriddo

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinicians' satisfaction with encounter decision aids is an important component in facilitating implementation of these tools. We aimed to determine the impact of decision aids supporting shared decision making (SDM) during the clinical encounter on clinician outcomes. METHODS: We searched nine databases from inception to June 2017. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of decision aids used during clinical encounters with an unaided control group were eligible for inclusion. Due to heterogeneity among included studies, we used a narrative evidence synthesis approach. RESULTS: Twenty-five papers met inclusion criteria including 22 RCTs and 3 qualitative or mixed-methods studies nested in an RCT, together representing 23 unique trials. These trials evaluated healthcare decisions for cardiovascular prevention and treatment (n=8), treatment of diabetes mellitus (n=3), treatment of osteoporosis (n=2), treatment of depression (n=2), antibiotics to treat acute respiratory infections (n=3), cancer prevention and treatment (n=4) and prenatal diagnosis (n=1). Clinician outcomes were measured in only a minority of studies. Clinicians' satisfaction with decision making was assessed in only 8 (and only 2 of them showed statistically significantly greater satisfaction with the decision aid); only three trials asked if clinicians would recommend the decision aid to colleagues and only five asked if clinicians would use decision aids in the future. Outpatient consultations were not prolonged when a decision aid was used in 9 out of 13 trials. The overall strength of the evidence was low, with the major risk of bias related to lack of blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors. CONCLUSION: Decision aids can improve clinicians' satisfaction with medical decision making and provide helpful information without affecting length of consultation time. Most SDM trials, however, omit outcomes related to clinicians' perspective on the decision making process or the likelihood of using a decision aid in the future.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Dobler et al. (2018) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a226e24f4540fbb2453e358https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008022
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Pilot Trial of a Computerized Decision Aid for Breast Cancer Prevention2007 · 61 citations
  2. 2A treatment decision aid may increase patient trust in the diabetes specialist. The Statin Choice randomized trial2009 · 112 citations
  3. 3Implementing shared decision‐making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities2000 · 254 citations
  4. 4Effect of the statin choice encounter decision aid in Spanish patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized trial2015 · 61 citations
  5. 5Explanation and elaboration of the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines: examples of reporting SUNDAE items from patient decision aid evaluation literature2018 · 33 citations