↓ Skip to main content

Decision aids to help older people make health decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decision aids to help older people make health decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0281-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia C. M. van Weert, Barbara C. van Munster, Remco Sanders, René Spijker, Lotty Hooft, Jesse Jansen

Abstract

Decision aids have been overall successful in improving the quality of health decision making. However, it is unclear whether the impact of the results of using decision aids also apply to older people (aged 65+). We sought to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids as compared to usual care or alternative intervention(s) for older adults facing treatment, screening or care decisions. A systematic search of (1) a Cochrane review of decision aids and (2) MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane library central registry of studies and Cinahl. We included published RCTs/CCTs of interventions designed to improve shared decision making (SDM) by older adults (aged 65+) and RCTs/CCTs that analysed the effect of the intervention in a subgroup with a mean age of 65+. Based on the International Patient Decision aid Standards (IPDAS), the primary outcomes were attributes of the decision and the decision process. Other behavioral, health, and health system effects were considered as secondary outcomes. If data could be pooled, a meta-analysis was conducted. Data for which meta-analysis was not possible were synthesized qualitatively. The search strategy yielded 11,034 references. After abstract and full text screening, 22 papers were included. Decision aids performed better than control resp. usual care interventions by increasing knowledge and accurate risk perception in older people (decision attributes). With regard to decision process attributes, decision aids resulted in lower decisional conflict and more patient participation. This review shows promising results on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults. Decision aids improve older adults' knowledge, increase their risk perception, decrease decisional conflict and seem to enhance participation in SDM. It must however be noted that the body of literature on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults is still in its infancy. Only one decision aid was specifically developed for older adults, and the mean age in most studies was between 65 and 70, indicating that the oldest-old were not included. Future research should expand on the design, application and evaluation of decision aids for older, more vulnerable adults.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 191 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 20%
Student > Master 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 52 27%
Unknown 30 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 13%
Social Sciences 16 8%
Psychology 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 42 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,905,162
of 18,893,921 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#250
of 1,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,814
of 272,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,893,921 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,545 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them