Is quality of life a suitable measure of patient decision aid effectiveness? Sub-analysis of a Cochrane systematic review
Patient decision-aids (PtDAs) help patients make informed treatment decisions incorporating their values. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is sometimes an outcome of PtDA effectiveness trials, but its suitability for this purpose is unclear. We sought to provide insights into this question by critically appraising how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PtDA effectiveness measure and report HRQOL.
We conducted a sub-analysis of RCTs included in the 2017 Cochrane review of PtDAs. Trials assessing HRQOL at baseline and post-PtDA, and comparing PtDA with comparison groups were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Analysis was descriptive.
Of 105 RCTs, 11 were eligible for inclusion. Patients randomized to PtDAs did not report better HRQOL than those randomized to usual care. While all 11 RCTs adequately described baseline sample characteristics and reported HRQOL results for study groups, few stated a priori HRQOL expectations or hypotheses (36%); made a link between HRQOL and the decision (18%); provided a rationale or justification for HRQOL assessment (18%); provided reason for choice of HRQOL assessment time-points (9%); or adjusted p-values for multiple HRQOL domains and time-points (0%).
PtDAs did not conclusively impact HRQOL. If this holds generally, then HRQOL is an uninformative endpoint for PtDA effectiveness trials. When planning trials of PtDAs, investigators considering HRQOL endpoints should consider whether and why their PtDA is likely to affect HRQOL in their context, and if so, which specific aspect(s) of HRQOL and at which time-point(s), and ensure HRQOL is assessed accordingly.
KeywordsQuality of life Patient decision aids Shared decision making Randomized controlled trials Cochrane, systematic review
We thank the authors of the Cochrane review of decision aids for people facing health screening and treatment decisions.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Elwyn, G., O’Connor, A., Stacey, D., Volk, R., Edwards, A., Coulter, A., et al. (2006). Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: Online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ, 333(7565), 417. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 2.Volk, R., & Llewellyn-Thomas, H. (2012). The 2012 IPDAS Background Document: An Introduction. In R. Volk & H. Llewellyn-Thomas (Eds.), 2012 Update of the International patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s Background Document.Google Scholar
- 4.Abhyankar, P., Volk, R., Blumenthal-Barby, J., Bravo, P., Buchholz, A., Ozanne, E., et al. (2013). Balancing the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids: An updated review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(Suppl 2), S6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 5.Greenhalgh, J., Dalkin, S., Gooding, K., Gibbons, E., Wright, J., Meads, D., et al. (2017). Functionality and feedback: A realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care. Health Service Delivery Research, 5(2), 1–280. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr05020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Au, H.-J., Ringash, J., Brundage, M., Palmer, M., Richardson, H., & Meyer, R. M. (2010). Added value of health-related quality of life measurement in cancer clinical trials: the experience of the NCIC CTG. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.10.15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims. MD: US Department of Health & Human Support Food & Drug Administration.Google Scholar
- 13.Calvert, M., Brundage, M., Jacobsen, P. B., Schunemann, H. J., & Efficace, F. (2013). The CONSORT Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) extension: implications for clinical trials and practice. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 11, 184. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-184.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 14.NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2001). Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews (2nd edn.). Vol. CRD Report 4). York: University of York.Google Scholar
- 16.LeBlanc, A., Wang, A. T., Wyatt, K., Branda, M. E., Shah, N. D., Van Houten, H., et al. (2015). Encounter decision aid vs. clinical decision support or usual care to support patient-centered treatment decisions in osteoporosis: The osteoporosis choice randomized trial II. PLOS ONE, 10(5), e0128063. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128063.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.McCaffery, K. J., Irwig, L., Turner, R., Chan, S. F., Macaskill, P., Lewicka, M., et al. (2010). Psychosocial outcomes of three triage methods for the management of borderline abnormal cervical smears: An open randomised trial. BMJ, 340, b4491. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b4491.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.Vuorma, S., Rissanen, P., Aalto, A. M., Hurskainen, R., Kujansuu, E., & Teperi, J. (2003). Impact of patient information booklet on treatment decision—a randomized trial among women with heavy menstruation. Health Expectations, 6(4), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1369-7625.2003.00225.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Knops, A. M., Goossens, A., Ubbink, D. T., Balm, R., Koelemay, M. J., Vahl, A. C., et al. (2014). A decision aid regarding treatment options for patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm: A randomised clinical trial. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 48(3), 276–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.04.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Bernstein, S. J., Skarupski, K. A., Grayson, C. E., Starling, M. R., Bates, E. R., & Eagle, K. A. (1998). A randomized controlled trial of information-giving to patients referred for coronary angiography: Effects on outcomes of care. Health Expectations, 1(1), 50–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 21.Morgan, M. W., Deber, R. B., Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A., Gladstone, P., Cusimano, R. J., O’Rourke, K., et al. (2000). Randomized, controlled trial of an interactive videodisc decision aid for patients with ischemic heart disease. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 15(10), 685–693.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 25.Protheroe, J., Bower, P., Chew-Graham, C., Peters, T. J., & Fahey, T. (2007). Effectiveness of a computerized decision aid in primary care on decision making and quality of life in menorrhagia: Results of the MENTIP randomized controlled trial. Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x07306785.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Cella, D. F. (1995). Measuring quality of life in palliative care. Seminar in Oncology, 22(2 Suppl 3), 73–81.Google Scholar
- 30.Valderas, J. M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2008). The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Quality of Life Research, 17(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Luckett, T., & King, M. T. (2010). Choosing patient-reported outcome measures for cancer clinical research–practical principles and an algorithm to assist non-specialist researchers. European Journal of Cancer, 46(18), 3149–3157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.08.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar