Values Clarification Methods in Decision Support Tools for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Content Analysis.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-17 DOI:10.1177/0272989X251355906
Norah L Crossnohere, Rosa Negash, Manny Schwimmer, Christiane Voisin, John F P Bridges, Daniel E Jonas
{"title":"Values Clarification Methods in Decision Support Tools for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Content Analysis.","authors":"Norah L Crossnohere, Rosa Negash, Manny Schwimmer, Christiane Voisin, John F P Bridges, Daniel E Jonas","doi":"10.1177/0272989X251355906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundValues clarification methods may be particularly appropriate for decision support in lung cancer screening (LCS), for which patients must consider a complex tradeoff of benefits and harms. Values clarification methods that are explicit and use theory-based methods may best support decision making.PurposeTo characterize values clarification methods in decision support tools for LCS and explore associations with behavioral and decisional outcomes.Data SourcesPubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, and Embase, supplemented with gray literature and hand searches.Study SelectionStudies evaluating patient-facing LCS decision support tools.Data ExtractionWe extracted information on study characteristics and the decision support tools evaluated in each study, including method of values clarification (explicit, implicit, or none). Study quality was evaluated using an adapted version of the SUNDAE Checklist.Data SynthesisWe identified 48 studies (10,233 participants) evaluating 32 unique decision support tools for LCS. More than 80% of tools included values clarification methods, split between explicit (<i>n</i> = 13) and implicit (<i>n</i> = 13) methods. Only 1 explicit values clarification used a theory-based method. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials indicated that using a decision support tool doubled the odds of receiving LCS (pooled odds ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval 1.21-3.25, 9 studies), a pattern driven by increased uptake of screening following use of tools with explicit or no values clarification. Studies lacking values clarification were of lower quality than those with explicit or implicit methods (<i>P</i> = 0.04).LimitationsAlmost no tools applied theory-based methods for explicit values clarification, limiting conclusions about their impact.ConclusionsLCS decision support tools routinely incorporate values clarification methods and appear to enhance screening uptake. However, theory-based values clarification methods, which may further improve decision support quality, remain underutilized.HighlightsValues clarification is a core aspect of shared decision making. It may be especially valuable for decision making regarding lung cancer screening (LCS), as patients must weigh a complex balance of benefits and harms.This systematic review identified 48 studies assessing 32 unique decision support tools for LCS. More than 80% of these tools incorporated values clarification methods, with an equal distribution of explicit and implicit methods.Among the subset of studies using a randomized controlled trial, the use of a decision support tool doubled the odds of an individual undergoing LCS.Decision support tools designed to support shared decision making in LCS commonly incorporate values clarification methods. However, they infrequently use theory-based methods, which are increasingly thought to provide high-quality decision support.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"811-825"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X251355906","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundValues clarification methods may be particularly appropriate for decision support in lung cancer screening (LCS), for which patients must consider a complex tradeoff of benefits and harms. Values clarification methods that are explicit and use theory-based methods may best support decision making.PurposeTo characterize values clarification methods in decision support tools for LCS and explore associations with behavioral and decisional outcomes.Data SourcesPubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, and Embase, supplemented with gray literature and hand searches.Study SelectionStudies evaluating patient-facing LCS decision support tools.Data ExtractionWe extracted information on study characteristics and the decision support tools evaluated in each study, including method of values clarification (explicit, implicit, or none). Study quality was evaluated using an adapted version of the SUNDAE Checklist.Data SynthesisWe identified 48 studies (10,233 participants) evaluating 32 unique decision support tools for LCS. More than 80% of tools included values clarification methods, split between explicit (n = 13) and implicit (n = 13) methods. Only 1 explicit values clarification used a theory-based method. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials indicated that using a decision support tool doubled the odds of receiving LCS (pooled odds ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval 1.21-3.25, 9 studies), a pattern driven by increased uptake of screening following use of tools with explicit or no values clarification. Studies lacking values clarification were of lower quality than those with explicit or implicit methods (P = 0.04).LimitationsAlmost no tools applied theory-based methods for explicit values clarification, limiting conclusions about their impact.ConclusionsLCS decision support tools routinely incorporate values clarification methods and appear to enhance screening uptake. However, theory-based values clarification methods, which may further improve decision support quality, remain underutilized.HighlightsValues clarification is a core aspect of shared decision making. It may be especially valuable for decision making regarding lung cancer screening (LCS), as patients must weigh a complex balance of benefits and harms.This systematic review identified 48 studies assessing 32 unique decision support tools for LCS. More than 80% of these tools incorporated values clarification methods, with an equal distribution of explicit and implicit methods.Among the subset of studies using a randomized controlled trial, the use of a decision support tool doubled the odds of an individual undergoing LCS.Decision support tools designed to support shared decision making in LCS commonly incorporate values clarification methods. However, they infrequently use theory-based methods, which are increasingly thought to provide high-quality decision support.

肺癌筛查决策支持工具的价值澄清方法:系统综述与内容分析。
背景值澄清方法可能特别适用于肺癌筛查(LCS)的决策支持,因为患者必须考虑复杂的利弊权衡。明确的价值澄清方法和使用基于理论的方法可以最好地支持决策。目的探讨LCS决策支持工具中价值澄清方法的特征,并探讨其与行为和决策结果的关系。数据来源pubmed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Embase,补充灰色文献和手工检索。研究选择评估面向患者的LCS决策支持工具的研究。数据提取我们提取了每项研究中评估的研究特征和决策支持工具的信息,包括价值澄清方法(显性、隐性或无)。使用改编版的SUNDAE检查表评估研究质量。我们确定了48项研究(10,233名参与者),评估了32种独特的LCS决策支持工具。超过80%的工具包括值澄清方法,分为显式(n = 13)和隐式(n = 13)方法。只有1个显式值的澄清采用了基于理论的方法。随机对照试验的荟萃分析表明,使用决策支持工具使接受LCS的几率增加了一倍(合并优势比1.98,95%置信区间1.21-3.25,9项研究),这一模式是由使用明确或不明确价值的工具后增加的筛查所驱动的。缺乏价值澄清的研究质量低于采用显式或隐式方法的研究(P = 0.04)。局限性几乎没有工具应用基于理论的方法来明确的价值澄清,限制了对其影响的结论。结论slcs决策支持工具通常包含价值澄清方法,并似乎提高了筛查的接受度。然而,基于理论的价值澄清方法可以进一步提高决策支持质量,但尚未得到充分利用。澄清价值观是共同决策的一个核心方面。这对于肺癌筛查(LCS)的决策尤其有价值,因为患者必须权衡利弊的复杂平衡。本系统综述确定了48项研究,评估了LCS的32种独特决策支持工具。超过80%的这些工具纳入了价值澄清方法,显式和隐式方法分布均匀。在使用随机对照试验的研究子集中,决策支持工具的使用使个体接受LCS的几率增加了一倍。为支持LCS中的共享决策而设计的决策支持工具通常包含价值观澄清方法。然而,他们很少使用基于理论的方法,这些方法越来越被认为可以提供高质量的决策支持。
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
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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