Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27566638›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Do choosing wisely tools meet criteria for patient decision aids? A descriptive analysis of patient materials.

France Légaré, Jessica Hébert, Larissa Goh, Krystina B Lewis, Maria Ester Leiva Portocarrero, Hubert Robitaille, Dawn Stacey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

France LégaréCanada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Research Axis of Population Health and Practice-Changing Research, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Saint-François-d'Assise Hospital, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Jessica HébertCanada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Research Axis of Population Health and Practice-Changing Research, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Saint-François-d'Assise Hospital, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Larissa GohCanada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Research Axis of Population Health and Practice-Changing Research, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Saint-François-d'Assise Hospital, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Krystina B LewisFaculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Maria Ester Leiva PortocarreroCanada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Research Axis of Population Health and Practice-Changing Research, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Saint-François-d'Assise Hospital, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Hubert RobitailleCanada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Research Axis of Population Health and Practice-Changing Research, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Saint-François-d'Assise Hospital, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Dawn StaceyFaculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesChoosing Wisely is a remarkable physician-led campaign to reduce unnecessary or harmful health services. Some of the literature identifies Choosing Wisely as a shared decision-making approach. We evaluated the patient materials developed by Choosing Wisely Canada to determine whether they meet the criteria for shared decision-making tools known as patient decision aids.

designDescriptive analysis of all Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials. DATA SOURCE: In May 2015, we selected all Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials from its official website. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four team members independently extracted characteristics of the English materials using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) modified 16-item minimum criteria for qualifying and certifying patient decision aids. The research team discussed discrepancies between data extractors and reached a consensus. Descriptive analysis was conducted.

resultsOf the 24 patient materials assessed, 12 were about treatments, 11 were about screening and 1 was about prevention. The median score for patient materials using IPDAS criteria was 10/16 (range: 8-11) for screening topics and 6/12 (range: 6-9) for prevention and treatment topics. Commonly missed criteria were stating the decision (21/24 did not), providing balanced information on option benefits/harms (24/24 did not), citing evidence (24/24 did not) and updating policy (24/24 did not). Out of 24 patient materials, only 2 met the 6 IPDAS criteria to qualify as patient decision aids, and neither of these 2 met the 6 certifying criteria.

conclusionsPatient materials developed by Choosing Wisely Canada do not meet the IPDAS minimal qualifying or certifying criteria for patient decision aids. Modifications to the Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials would help to ensure that they qualify as patient decision aids and thus as more effective shared decision-making tools.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesAccess to InformationCanadaHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth LiteracyHumansPatient Education as TopicUnnecessary ProceduresChoosing WiselyPatient decision aids (PtDAs)Shared decision making (SDM)

Identifiers

PMID27566638
PMCPMC5013503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.