Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39673417›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2025

How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities.

Romy Richter, Jesse Jansen, Josine van der Kraan, Wais Abbaspoor, Iris Bongaerts, Fleur Pouwels, Celine Vilters, Jany Rademakers, Trudy van der Weijden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Romy RichterDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3476-4207
Jesse JansenDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7739-0049
Josine van der KraanNetherlands Patients Federation, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Wais AbbaspoorDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Iris BongaertsDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Fleur PouwelsDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Celine ViltersDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Jany RademakersDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Trudy van der WeijdenDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatient decision aids (PtDAs) can support shared decision making. We aimed to explore how inclusive PtDAs are for people with limited health literacy (LHL) by analyzing 1) the understandability of PtDAs using established criteria, 2) how options and probabilities of outcomes are communicated, and 3) the extent to which risk communication (RC) guidelines are followed.

methodsIn a descriptive document analysis, we analyzed Dutch PtDAs available in 2021 that met the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. We developed and pilot tested a data extraction form based on key RC and health literacy literature.

resultsMost PtDAs (151/198) met most of the understandability criteria on layout (7-8 out of 8 items) such as font size but not on content aspects (121/198 PtDAs scored 5-7 out of 12 items) such as defining medical terms. Only 31 of 198 PtDAs used a short and simple sentence structure. Most PtDAs presented 2 to 4 treatment options. Many followed RC recommendations such as the use of numerical RC strategies such as percentages or natural frequencies (160/198) and visual formats such as icon arrays (91/198). Only 10 used neutral framing (10/198). When presented, uncertainty was presented verbally (134/198) or in ranges (58/198). Four PtDAs were co-created together with patients with LHL and used only verbal RC or no RC.

conclusionMost PtDAs met most of the understandability criteria on layout, but content aspects and adherence to RC strategies can be improved. Many PtDAs used long sentences and mostly verbal RC and are therefore likely to be inappropriate for patients with LHL. Further research is needed on PtDA characteristics and RC strategies suitable for people with LHL. HIGHLIGHTS: Despite meeting most criteria for understandability, many of the Dutch PtDAs use long sentences, which likely impede comprehension for patients with LHL.Most of the Dutch PtDAs follow established recommendations for risk communication, with room for improvement for some strategies such as framing and a clear reference to the time frame.Overall, more research is needed to tailor PtDAs to the needs of people with LHL.

Indexed as

CommunicationComprehensionDecision Support TechniquesHealth LiteracyPatient ParticipationDecision Making, SharedHumansNetherlandsProbabilityhealth literacypatient decision aidsrisk communicationshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID39673417
PMCPMC11736975

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.