SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014
Undetermined impact of patient decision support interventions on healthcare costs and savings: systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Primum non nocere: shared informed decision making in low back pain--a pilot cluster randomised trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2014Trial
- Cost effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for parents deciding about MMR vaccination: a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Trial
- Practical applications of methods to incorporate patient preferences into medical decision models: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Shared decision making - a review of its evaluation, efficacy, and applicability in asthma.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- A Joanna Briggs Institute Framework Approach to Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Review
- Usability of an Automated System for Real-Time Monitoring of Shared Decision-Making for Surgery: Mixed Methods Evaluation.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Combined surveillance and treatment register for children with cerebral palsy: the protocol of the Netherlands CP register.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Shared decision making: a personal view from two kidney doctors and a patient.Clinical kidney journal · 2023Review
- Article
- Women's preference to apply shared decision-making in breast cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Shared decision-making in urology and female pelvic floor medicine and reconstructive surgery.Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
- Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2021Review
- Information Access and Use by Patients With Cancer and Their Friends and Family: Development of a Grounded Theory.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Measuring the Benefits of Decision Aids for Economic Evaluation.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2019Article
- Patient decision aid for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for use in the consultation: a feasibility study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2019Article
- Could shared decision making affect staying in hospital? A cross-sectional pilot study.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Overtreatment in the United States.PloS one · 2017Article
- Do choosing wisely tools meet criteria for patient decision aids? A descriptive analysis of patient materials.BMJ open · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a systematic review of studies that assessed the potential of patient decision support interventions (decision aids) to generate savings.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: After registration with PROSPERO, we searched 12 databases, from inception to 15 March 2013, using relevant MeSH terms and text words. Included studies were assessed with Cochrane's risk of bias method and Drummond's quality checklist for economic studies. Per patient costs and projected savings associated with introducing patient decision support interventions were calculated, as well as absolute changes in treatment rates after implementation. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they contained quantitative economic data, including savings, spending, costs, cost effectiveness analysis, cost benefit analysis, or resource utilization. We excluded studies that lacked quantitative data on savings, costs, monetary value, and/or resource utilization.
resultsAfter reviewing 1508 citations, we included seven studies with eight analyses. Of these seven studies, four analyses predicted system-wide savings, with two analyses from the same study. The predicted savings range from $8 (£5, €6) to $3068 (£1868, €2243) per patient. Larger savings accompanied reductions in treatment utilization rates. The impact on utilization rates was mixed. Authors used heterogeneous methods to allocate costs and calculate savings. Quality scores were low to moderate (median 4.5, range 0-8 out of 10), and risk of bias across the studies was moderate to high (3.5, range 3-6 out of 6), with studies predicting the most savings having the highest risk of bias. The range of issues identified in the studies included the relative absence of sensitivity analyses, the absence of incremental cost effectiveness ratios, and short time periods.
conclusionAlthough there is evidence to show that patients choose more conservative approaches when they become better informed, there is insufficient evidence, as yet, to be confident that the implementation of patient decision support interventions leads to system-wide savings. Further work-with sensitivity analyses, longer time horizons, and more contexts-is required to avoid premature or unrealistic expectations that could jeopardize implementation and lead to the loss of already proved benefits. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42012003421.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.