Search

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is known to improve quality of care. Particularly in vascular surgery treatment options are often preference-sensitive. Unfortunately, vascular surgeons infrequently apply SDM. Decision support tools (DSTs) have been shown to be helpful in SDM.Objective: This article describes the development process of three different DSTs to help vascular surgeons and patients apply SDM.Patient Involvement: Patients' information needs were obtained via focus group meetings. Fifty-two patients and eighteen vascular surgeons not involved in the development process evaluated the comprehensibility and usability of the DST-prototypes.Methods: A multidisciplinary steering group commissioned the development of the three DSTs according to international standards.Results: Digital decision aids and paper-based consultation cards and decision cards were developed for patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid artery disease, intermittent claudication or varicose veins. Patients preferred the use of the decision aids followed by consultation cards, whereas vascular surgeons preferred to use decision cards followed by decision aids.Discussion: Decision aids, consultation cards and decision cards for four vascular diseases are now available to all vascular surgeons and patients in the Netherlands. The DSTs were well received by both surgeons and patients. English versions are also available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective communication of treatment risks is important to enable patients to make informed decisions. This study aimed to determine the effects of different risk formats on participants’ evaluation and interpretation of risk information and on their treatment choice. Participants (N=44) were recruited among patients who had undergone surgery for an abdominal aneurysm and were asked to evaluate treatment risks (surgery or an observation policy) of two hypothetical cases presented in one of three risk formats (numbers, vertical bars or icons). Risk information presented in vertical bars was evaluated as the most difficult to comprehend, and the perceived threat of this information was evaluated as higher than that of the other risk formats. Risk information presented as icons was evaluated as more helpful for making a decision, but resulted in a lower percentage of participants choosing for surgery than when risks were presented in the other formats. In conclusion, this study showed that different risk formats have different effects on participants’ evaluation of the information and on their choice. Doctors should therefore be careful in choosing the format in which they present treatment risks. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]