Renata W. Yen|Jenna Smith|Jaclyn Engel|Danielle M Muscat|Sian K Smith|Julien Mancini|Lilisbeth Perestelo?Pérez|Glyn Elwyn|A. James O’Malley|JoAnna K. Leyenaar|Olivia Mac|Tamara Cadet|Anik Giguère|Ashley J. Housten|Aisha T. Langford|Kirsten McCaffery|Marie?Anne Durand
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IDPAS)
Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice|Dartmouth College|University of Sydney|Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice|Dartmouth College|University of Sydney|University of Bath|Inserm|Economic & Social Sciences, Health Systems & Medical Informatics|Aix-Marseille University|Institut de Recherche pour le Développement|Servicio Canario de la Salud|Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice|Dartmouth College|Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice|Dartmouth College|Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice|Dartmouth College|Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center|University of Sydney|Simmons University|Harvard University|Université Laval|Washington University in St. Louis|New York University|University of Sydney|Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice|Dartmouth College|Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier
background effectiveness patient decision aids ptdas shared decisionmaking sdm interventions socially disadvantaged populations well studied purpose assess whether ptdas sdm interventions improve outcomes decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations determine critical features successful interventions data sources medline cinahl cochrane psycinfo web science inception october 2019 cochrane systematic reviews ptdas study selection randomized controlled trials ptdas sdm interventions included socially disadvantaged populations data extraction independent double data extraction using standardized form template intervention description replication checklist data synthesis twentyfive ptda 13 sdm intervention trials met inclusion criteria compared usual care ptdas improved knowledge mean difference 1391 95 confidence interval ci 901 1882 2 96 patientclinician communication relative risk 162 95 ci 142 184 2 0 ptdas reduced decisional conflict mean difference 959 95 ci 1894 024 2 84 proportion undecided relative risk 039 95 ci 028 053 2 75 ptdas affect anxiety standardized mean difference 002 95 ci 022 026 2 70 1 trial looked clinical outcomes hemoglobin a1c five 12 ptda studies compared outcomes disadvantaged standing found outcomes improved socially disadvantaged participants evidence indicated intervention characteristics effective results similar sdm intervention trials limitations sixteen ptda studies overall unclear risk bias heterogeneity high outcomes studies shortterm followup conclusions ptdas led better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations reduce health inequalities could determine intervention features effective box see text