• James G Dolan, Olena A Cherkasky, Nancy Chin, and Peter J Veazie.
• Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (JGD, OAC, NC, PJV).
• Med Decis Making. 2015 Nov 1; 35 (8): 979-86.

BackgroundConscious and unconscious biases can influence how people interpret new information and make decisions. Current standards for creating decision aids, however, do not address this issue.MethodUsing a 2×2 factorial design, we developed surveys that contained a decision scenario (involving a choice between aspirin or a statin drug to lower risk of heart attack) and a decision aid. Each aid presented identical information about reduction in heart attack risk and likelihood of a major side effect. They differed in whether the options were labeled and the amount of decisional guidance: information only (a balance sheet) versus information plus values clarification (a multicriteria decision analysis). We sent the surveys to members of 2 Internet survey panels. After using the decision aid, participants indicated their preferred medication. Those using a multicriteria decision aid also judged differences in the comparative outcome data provided for the 2 options and the relative importance of achieving benefits versus avoiding risks in making the decision.ResultsThe study sample size was 536. Participants using decision aids with unlabeled options were more likely to choose a statin: 56% versus 25% (P < 0.001). The type of decision aid made no difference. This effect persisted after adjustment for differences in survey company, age, gender, education level, health literacy, and numeracy. Participants using unlabeled decision aids were also more likely to interpret the data presented as favoring a statin with regard to both treatment benefits and risk of side effects (P ≤ 0.01). There were no significant differences in decision priorities (P = 0.21).ConclusionIdentifying the options in patient decision aids can influence patient preferences and change how they interpret comparative outcome data.© The Author(s) 2015.

18 keywords...

hide…