Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 6/2015

01-12-2015 | Short Communication

Balance Sheets Versus Decision Dashboards to Support Patient Treatment Choices: A Comparative Analysis

Authors: James G. Dolan, Peter J. Veazie

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 6/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Growing recognition of the importance of involving patients in preference-driven healthcare decisions has highlighted the need to develop practical strategies to implement patient-centered shared decision-making. The use of tabular balance sheets to support clinical decision-making is well established. More recent evidence suggests that graphic, interactive decision dashboards can help people derive deeper a understanding of information within a specific decision context. We therefore conducted a non-randomized trial comparing the effects of adding an interactive dashboard to a static tabular balance sheet on patient decision-making.

Methods

The study population consisted of members of the ResearchMatch registry who volunteered to participate in a study of medical decision-making. Two separate surveys were conducted: one in the control group and one in the intervention group. All participants were instructed to imagine they were newly diagnosed with a chronic illness and were asked to choose between three hypothetical drug treatments, which varied with regard to effectiveness, side effects, and out-of-pocket cost. Both groups made an initial treatment choice after reviewing a balance sheet. After a brief “washout” period, members of the control group made a second treatment choice after reviewing the balance sheet again, while intervention group members made a second treatment choice after reviewing an interactive decision dashboard containing the same information. After both choices, participants rated their degree of confidence in their choice on a 1 to 10 scale.

Results

Members of the dashboard intervention group were more likely to change their choice of preferred drug (10.2 versus 7.5 %; p = 0.054) and had a larger increase in decision confidence than the control group (0.67 versus 0.075; p < 0.03). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in decisional conflict or decision aid acceptability.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that clinical decision dashboards may be an effective point-of-care decision-support tool. Further research to explore this possibility is warranted.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD001431.PubMed Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD001431.PubMed
2.
go back to reference Legare F, Witteman HO. Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Aff. 2013;32:276–84.CrossRef Legare F, Witteman HO. Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Aff. 2013;32:276–84.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Scholl I, Tietbohl C, Mann M, Edwards AG, Clay C, et al. “Many miles to go …”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S14.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Elwyn G, Scholl I, Tietbohl C, Mann M, Edwards AG, Clay C, et al. “Many miles to go …”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S14.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Lin GA, Halley M, Rendle KAS, Tietbohl C, May SG, Trujillo L, et al. An effort to spread decision aids in five California primary care practices yielded low distribution, highlighting hurdles. Health Aff. 2013;32:311–20.CrossRef Lin GA, Halley M, Rendle KAS, Tietbohl C, May SG, Trujillo L, et al. An effort to spread decision aids in five California primary care practices yielded low distribution, highlighting hurdles. Health Aff. 2013;32:311–20.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Lloyd A, Joseph-Williams N, Cording E, Thomson R, Durand M, et al. Option grids: shared decision making made easier. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90:207–12.CrossRefPubMed Elwyn G, Lloyd A, Joseph-Williams N, Cording E, Thomson R, Durand M, et al. Option grids: shared decision making made easier. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90:207–12.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1361–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1361–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Jones LA, Weymiller AJ, Shah N, Bryant SC, Christianson TJH, Guyatt GH, et al. Should clinicians deliver decision aids? Further exploration of the statin choice randomized trial results. Med Decis Mak. 2009;29:468–74.CrossRef Jones LA, Weymiller AJ, Shah N, Bryant SC, Christianson TJH, Guyatt GH, et al. Should clinicians deliver decision aids? Further exploration of the statin choice randomized trial results. Med Decis Mak. 2009;29:468–74.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Légaré F, Ratté S, Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Gravel K, Graham ID, Turcotte S. Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(5):CD006732. Légaré F, Ratté S, Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Gravel K, Graham ID, Turcotte S. Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(5):CD006732.
9.
10.
go back to reference Mullan RJ, Montori VM, Shah ND, Christianson TJH, Bryant SC, Guyatt GH, et al. The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid: a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1560–8.CrossRefPubMed Mullan RJ, Montori VM, Shah ND, Christianson TJH, Bryant SC, Guyatt GH, et al. The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid: a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1560–8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Few S. Now you see it: simple visualization techniques for quantitative analysis. Oakland: Analytics Press; 2009. Few S. Now you see it: simple visualization techniques for quantitative analysis. Oakland: Analytics Press; 2009.
12.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science. 2011;333:1393–400.CrossRefPubMed Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science. 2011;333:1393–400.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Chen C. Information visualization. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat. 2010;2:387–403.CrossRef Chen C. Information visualization. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat. 2010;2:387–403.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Few S. Information dashboard design: the effective visual communication of data. 1st ed. Beijing: O’Reilly; 2006. Few S. Information dashboard design: the effective visual communication of data. 1st ed. Beijing: O’Reilly; 2006.
15.
go back to reference Watson HJ, Wixom BH. The current state of business intelligence. Computer. 2007;40:96–9.CrossRef Watson HJ, Wixom BH. The current state of business intelligence. Computer. 2007;40:96–9.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Yigitbasioglu OM, Velcu O. A review of dashboards in performance management: implications for design and research. Int J Account Inf Syst. 2012;13:41–59.CrossRef Yigitbasioglu OM, Velcu O. A review of dashboards in performance management: implications for design and research. Int J Account Inf Syst. 2012;13:41–59.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Harris PA, Scott KW, Lebo L, Hassan N, Lighter C, Pulley J. ResearchMatch: a national registry to recruit volunteers for clinical research. Acad Med. 2012;87:66.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Harris PA, Scott KW, Lebo L, Hassan N, Lighter C, Pulley J. ResearchMatch: a national registry to recruit volunteers for clinical research. Acad Med. 2012;87:66.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27:672–80.CrossRef Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27:672–80.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, Noorbaloochi S, Grill JP, Snyder A, et al. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:561–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, Noorbaloochi S, Grill JP, Snyder A, et al. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:561–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15:25–30.CrossRef O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15:25–30.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Tukey JW. Exploratory data analysis. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1976. Tukey JW. Exploratory data analysis. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1976.
23.
go back to reference SAS Institute, Inc. JMP 10.0.2. Cary: SAS Institute, Inc.; 2012. SAS Institute, Inc. JMP 10.0.2. Cary: SAS Institute, Inc.; 2012.
24.
go back to reference Hibbard JH, Peters E. Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2003;24:413–33.CrossRefPubMed Hibbard JH, Peters E. Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2003;24:413–33.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Ware C. Information visualization: perception for design. Amsterdam: Elsevier/MK; 2013. Ware C. Information visualization: perception for design. Amsterdam: Elsevier/MK; 2013.
26.
go back to reference Vessey I. Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decis Sci. 1991;22:219–40.CrossRef Vessey I. Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decis Sci. 1991;22:219–40.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Oppenheimer DM, Frank MC. A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: effects of perceptual fluency on categorization. Cognition. 2008;106:1178–94.CrossRefPubMed Oppenheimer DM, Frank MC. A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: effects of perceptual fluency on categorization. Cognition. 2008;106:1178–94.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Shah AK, Oppenheimer DM. Easy does it: the role of fluency in cue weighting. Judgm Decis Mak. 2007;2:371–9. Shah AK, Oppenheimer DM. Easy does it: the role of fluency in cue weighting. Judgm Decis Mak. 2007;2:371–9.
29.
go back to reference Reber R, Schwarz N. Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Conscious Cognit. 1999;8:338–42.CrossRef Reber R, Schwarz N. Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Conscious Cognit. 1999;8:338–42.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Hansen J, Dechêne A, Wänke M. Discrepant fluency increases subjective truth. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2008;44:687–91.CrossRef Hansen J, Dechêne A, Wänke M. Discrepant fluency increases subjective truth. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2008;44:687–91.CrossRef
31.
Metadata
Title
Balance Sheets Versus Decision Dashboards to Support Patient Treatment Choices: A Comparative Analysis
Authors
James G. Dolan
Peter J. Veazie
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0111-6

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 6/2015 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.