Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36039824›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

The development and utility of a multicriteria patient decision aid for people contemplating treatment for osteoarthritis.

Sam G Moreton, Glenn Salkeld, Sally Wortley, Yun-Hee Jeon, Hema Urban, David J Hunter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. 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. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. The development and utility of a multicriteria patient decision aid for people contemplating treatment for osteoarthritis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Sam G MoretonSchool of Psychology, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4585-2755
Glenn SalkeldFaculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Sally WortleyConsumer Evidence and Engagement Unit, Australian Department of Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Yun-Hee JeonSydney Nursing School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Hema UrbanRheumatology Department, Institute of Bone and Joint Research, The Kolling Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1390-8109
David J HunterThe Lancet Regional Health, Elsevier, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are a range of treatment options for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee and hip, each with a unique profile of risks and benefits. Patient decision aids can help incorporate patient preferences in treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to develop and test the utility of a patient decision aid for OA that was developed using a multicriteria decision analytic framework.

methodsPeople contemplating treatment for OA who had accessed the website myjointpain.org.au were invited to participate in the study by using the online patient decision aid. Two forms of the patient decision aid were created: A shorter form and a longer form, which allowed greater customization that was offered to respondents after they had completed the shorter form. Respondents also completed questions asking about their experience using the patient decision aid.

resultsA total of 625 self-selected respondents completed the short-form and 180 completed the long-form. Across both forms, serious side effects, pain and function were rated as the most important treatment outcomes. Most respondents (64%) who completed the longer form reported that using the tool was a positive experience, 38% reported that using the tool had changed their mind and 48% said that using the tool would improve the quality of their decision-making.

conclusionsOverall, the findings suggest that this patient decision aid may be of use to a substantial number of people in facilitating appropriate treatment decision-making. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Service users of myjointpain.org.au were involved through their participation in the study, and their feedback will guide the development of future iterations of the tool.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, KneeDecision Support TechniquesHumansPatient Preferencedecision aiddecision support toolmulticriteria decision analysisosteoarthritisosteoarthritis treatmenttreatment decision-making

Identifiers

PMID36039824
PMCPMC9700162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.