What is the Effectiveness of Type 2 Diabetes Related Patient Decision Aids? Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review.

Sandhya Goge, Christopher Tran, Krystina B Lewis, Meg Carley, Carol Bennett, Dawn Stacey
{"title":"What is the Effectiveness of Type 2 Diabetes Related Patient Decision Aids? Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review.","authors":"Sandhya Goge, Christopher Tran, Krystina B Lewis, Meg Carley, Carol Bennett, Dawn Stacey","doi":"10.1016/j.jcjd.2025.02.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are evidence-based interventions to help people faced with difficult healthcare decisions. Little is known about their effectiveness in people facing diabetes related decisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of RCTs from 2024 Cochrane review of PtDAs, comparing decisions aids on diabetes screening, prevention or treatment to usual care (e.g., patient education, no intervention). Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed study quality.</p><p><strong>Primary outcomes: </strong>quality of the decision and decision-making process. Meta-analyses were conducted for similar outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 209 RCTs, 11 eligible studies evaluated diabetes PtDAs for treatment (n=7), screening (n=3) and prevention (n=1). Common decisions were about diabetes treatment intensification (n=4) and statin initiation (n=3), in people with type 2 diabetes. Compared to usual care, PtDA group reported increased knowledge (MD 16.06, 95%CI 8.38 to23.75) and clearer values (MD -7.43, 95%CI -13.23 to -1.63) and no difference in accurate risk perceptions. After removing high risk of bias studies, PtDAs led to fewer patients feeling uninformed about their options (MD -6.38; 95%CI -9.58 to -3.19) and more participants starting new medications (RR 1.65, 95%CI 1.06 to 2.56). Six studies measured adherence to a chosen option: one reported greater adherence while another reported lower adherence in PtDA versus usual care and remaining four reported no difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients given PtDAs can improve their knowledge, feel informed and clearer about their values, while being more likely to start new medications. Future research can strengthen certainty of these findings and explore PtDAs use within chronic disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":93918,"journal":{"name":"Canadian journal of diabetes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian journal of diabetes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2025.02.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are evidence-based interventions to help people faced with difficult healthcare decisions. Little is known about their effectiveness in people facing diabetes related decisions.

Methods: Secondary analysis of RCTs from 2024 Cochrane review of PtDAs, comparing decisions aids on diabetes screening, prevention or treatment to usual care (e.g., patient education, no intervention). Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed study quality.

Primary outcomes: quality of the decision and decision-making process. Meta-analyses were conducted for similar outcome measures.

Results: Of 209 RCTs, 11 eligible studies evaluated diabetes PtDAs for treatment (n=7), screening (n=3) and prevention (n=1). Common decisions were about diabetes treatment intensification (n=4) and statin initiation (n=3), in people with type 2 diabetes. Compared to usual care, PtDA group reported increased knowledge (MD 16.06, 95%CI 8.38 to23.75) and clearer values (MD -7.43, 95%CI -13.23 to -1.63) and no difference in accurate risk perceptions. After removing high risk of bias studies, PtDAs led to fewer patients feeling uninformed about their options (MD -6.38; 95%CI -9.58 to -3.19) and more participants starting new medications (RR 1.65, 95%CI 1.06 to 2.56). Six studies measured adherence to a chosen option: one reported greater adherence while another reported lower adherence in PtDA versus usual care and remaining four reported no difference.

Conclusion: Patients given PtDAs can improve their knowledge, feel informed and clearer about their values, while being more likely to start new medications. Future research can strengthen certainty of these findings and explore PtDAs use within chronic disease.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信