Effectiveness of patient decision aids for cardiovascular decisions: Systematic review with sex/gender-based analysis.

Krystina B Lewis, Ian D Graham, Sandra B Lauck, Meg E Carley, Carol Bennett, Semhal Gessese, Dawn Stacey
{"title":"Effectiveness of patient decision aids for cardiovascular decisions: Systematic review with sex/gender-based analysis.","authors":"Krystina B Lewis, Ian D Graham, Sandra B Lauck, Meg E Carley, Carol Bennett, Semhal Gessese, Dawn Stacey","doi":"10.1093/eurjcn/zvaf103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Determine effectiveness of cardiovascular patient decision aids (PtDAs), assess consideration for sex and/or gender in included trials, and report whether PtDAs included sex/gender information in personal cardiovascular risk calculations, benefits or harms.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Systematic review with meta-analysis. Independent reviewers screened 209 trials in the 2024 Cochrane Review of PtDAs for eligible cardiovascular trials with updated search to February 2025. Primary outcomes: attributes of the decision quality and decision-making process. We conducted meta-analysis for similarly measured outcomes. We assessed sex/gender considerations according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' recommendations.Thirty-two trials evaluated PtDAs versus usual care on cardiovascular screening (n=3 trials; 9.4%), prevention (n=4; 12.5%), and treatment (25; 78.1%) decisions. There was no difference between groups on decision quality (2 trials). Patients exposed to PtDAs had significantly improved decision-making process outcomes: 12% greater knowledge (20 trials), 127% more accurate risk perceptions (7 trials), 10% feel less uninformed (12 trials), 8% less unclear values (12 trials), and 31% less clinician-controlled decision-making. There were no harms. All 32 trials reported sex or gender with 15 (47%) using appropriate terms. One trial reported outcomes separately by sex, but not by study arm. Six (19%) discussed influence of sex/gender on trial findings. Fourteen (43.8%) PtDAs included sex/gender personalized cardiovascular risk scores. supp.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cardiovascular PtDAs improve quality of the decision-making process. Less than half of trials used appropriate sex/gender terms and only one reported findings separately by sex/gender. Future PtDA research must improve sex and gender-based reporting and analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":93997,"journal":{"name":"European journal of cardiovascular nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of cardiovascular nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvaf103","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

Aims: Determine effectiveness of cardiovascular patient decision aids (PtDAs), assess consideration for sex and/or gender in included trials, and report whether PtDAs included sex/gender information in personal cardiovascular risk calculations, benefits or harms.

Methods and results: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Independent reviewers screened 209 trials in the 2024 Cochrane Review of PtDAs for eligible cardiovascular trials with updated search to February 2025. Primary outcomes: attributes of the decision quality and decision-making process. We conducted meta-analysis for similarly measured outcomes. We assessed sex/gender considerations according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' recommendations.Thirty-two trials evaluated PtDAs versus usual care on cardiovascular screening (n=3 trials; 9.4%), prevention (n=4; 12.5%), and treatment (25; 78.1%) decisions. There was no difference between groups on decision quality (2 trials). Patients exposed to PtDAs had significantly improved decision-making process outcomes: 12% greater knowledge (20 trials), 127% more accurate risk perceptions (7 trials), 10% feel less uninformed (12 trials), 8% less unclear values (12 trials), and 31% less clinician-controlled decision-making. There were no harms. All 32 trials reported sex or gender with 15 (47%) using appropriate terms. One trial reported outcomes separately by sex, but not by study arm. Six (19%) discussed influence of sex/gender on trial findings. Fourteen (43.8%) PtDAs included sex/gender personalized cardiovascular risk scores. supp.

Conclusion: Cardiovascular PtDAs improve quality of the decision-making process. Less than half of trials used appropriate sex/gender terms and only one reported findings separately by sex/gender. Future PtDA research must improve sex and gender-based reporting and analysis.

患者决策辅助心血管决策的有效性:基于性别/性别分析的系统评价。
目的:确定心血管患者决策辅助(ptda)的有效性,评估纳入试验中对性别和/或性别的考虑,并报告ptda是否在个人心血管风险计算、获益或危害中包含性别/性别信息。方法和结果:采用meta分析进行系统评价。独立审稿人在2024年Cochrane ptda综述中筛选了209项符合条件的心血管试验,并更新到2025年2月。主要结果:决策质量和决策过程的属性。我们对类似的测量结果进行了荟萃分析。我们根据国际医学杂志编辑委员会的建议评估了性别/性别因素。32项试验评估了ptda与常规护理在心血管筛查中的作用(n=3项试验;9.4%),预防(n=4;12.5%)和治疗(25%;78.1%)的决定。两组在决策质量上无差异(2项试验)。暴露于ptda的患者的决策过程结果显着改善:知识增加12%(20项试验),风险感知准确性提高127%(7项试验),10%感觉不知情(12项试验),8%减少不清楚的值(12项试验),31%减少临床控制的决策。没有任何伤害。所有32项试验均报告了性别或性别,其中15项(47%)使用了适当的术语。一项试验分别报告了性别的结果,但没有报告研究组的结果。6人(19%)讨论了性别/性别对试验结果的影响。14例(43.8%)ptda包括性别/性别个性化心血管风险评分。结论:心血管ptda提高了决策质量。不到一半的试验使用了适当的性别/性别术语,只有一项试验单独报告了性别/性别的发现。未来的PtDA研究必须改进性别和基于性别的报告和分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信