Search

Objective: To evaluate the Ottawa Decision Support Tutorial (ODST), an open-access shared decision making educational program., Methods: We conducted a post-test study. Eligible participants completed a knowledge test and/or acceptability survey after completing ODST version 1 (2007-2013), version 2 (2013-2015), or version 3 (2015-2017). We conducted descriptive analysis and compared outcomes across versions using log transformed linear regression (knowledge) and log binomial regression (acceptability). Content analysis explored verbatim suggestions to improve the ODST., Results: Overall, 6604 users completed the knowledge test and 4276 completed the acceptability survey. The median knowledge test score was 8/10 (IQR = 7-9) with 68% of users achieving a passing grade of 7.5/10. Users who completed version 2 had the highest median knowledge scores (version 1 = 7.9, version 2 = 8.5, version 3 = 8.0, p < 0.001) and pass rate (version 1 = 63%, version 2 = 73%, version 3 = 69%). Acceptability was high, with 90% reporting a good or excellent overall impression. Few users suggested improvements (readability, presentation, audiovisual)., Conclusions: Most users passed the ODST knowledge test and rated the tutorial as acceptable. We will use feedback to improve the ODST., Practice Implications: The ODST is an inexpensive and widely accessible intervention that can be used to educate healthcare providers about SDM and decision support., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies., Selection Criteria: Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence., Main Results: We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs., Authors' Conclusions: It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) can reduce overuse of options not associated with benefits for all and respects patient rights, but has not yet been widely adopted in practice., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM., Search Methods: For this update we searched for primary studies in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialsied Register and PsycINFO for the period March 2009 to August 2012. We searched the Clinical Trials.gov registry and the proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference. We scanned the bibliographies of relevant papers and studies. We contacted experts in the field to identify papers published after August 2012., Selection Criteria: Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM where the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based outcome measures (OBOM) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROM)., Data Collection and Analysis: The three overall categories of intervention were: interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. Studies in each category were compared to studies in the same category, to studies in the other two categories, and to usual care, resulting in nine comparison groups. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes separately. We calculated the median of the standardized mean difference (SMD), or risk difference, and range of effect across studies and categories of intervention. We assessed risk of bias., Main Results: Thirty-nine studies were included, 38 randomised and one non-randomised controlled trial. Categorical measures did not show any effect for any of the interventions. In OBOM studies, interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals had a positive effect compared to usual care (SMD of 2.83) and compared to interventions targeting patients alone (SMD of 1.42). Studies comparing interventions targeting patients with other interventions targeting patients had a positive effect, as did studies comparing interventions targeting healthcare professionals with usual care (SDM of 1.13 and 1.08 respectively). In PROM studies, only three comparisons showed any effect, patient compared to usual care (SMD of 0.21), patient compared to another patient (SDM of 0.29) and healthcare professional compared to another healthcare professional (SDM of 0.20). For all comparisons, interpretation of the results needs to consider the small number of studies, the heterogeneity, and some methodological issues. Overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes, assessed with the GRADE tool, ranged from low to very low., Authors' Conclusions: It is uncertain whether interventions to improve adoption of SDM are effective given the low quality of the evidence. However, any intervention that actively targets patients, healthcare professionals, or both, is better than none. Also, interventions targeting patients and healthcare professionals together show more promise than those targeting only one or the other.

Background: Shared decision making is the process in which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the health professional and the patient. Little is known about what patients view as effective or ineffective strategies to implement shared decision making in routine clinical practice., Objective: This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of interventions to improve health professionals' adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice, as seen by patients., Data Sources: We searched electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) from their inception to mid-March 2009. We found additional material by reviewing the reference lists of the studies found in the databases; systematic reviews of studies on shared decision making; the proceedings of various editions of the International Shared Decision Making Conference; and the transcripts of the Society for Medical Decision Making's meetings., Study Selection: In our study selection, we included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses in which patients evaluated interventions to improve health professionals' adoption of shared decision making. The interventions in question consisted of the distribution of printed educational material; educational meetings; audit and feedback; reminders; and patient-mediated initiatives (e.g. patient decision aids)., Study Appraisal: Two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data. Statistical analyses considered categorical and continuous process measures. We computed the standardized effect size for each outcome at the 95% confidence interval. The primary outcome of interest was health professionals' adoption of shared decision making as reported by patients in a self-administered questionnaire., Results: Of the 6764 search results, 21 studies reported 35 relevant comparisons. Overall, the quality of the studies ranged from 0% to 83%. Only three of the 21 studies reported a clinically significant effect for the primary outcome that favored the intervention. The first study compared an educational meeting and a patient-mediated intervention with another patient-mediated intervention (median improvement of 74%). The second compared an educational meeting, a patient-mediated intervention, and audit and feedback with an educational meeting on an alternative topic (improvement of 227%). The third compared an educational meeting and a patient-mediated intervention with usual care (p = 0.003). All three studies were limited to the patient-physician dyad., Limitations: To reduce bias, future studies should improve methods and reporting, and should analyze costs and benefits, including those associated with training of health professionals., Conclusions: Multifaceted interventions that include educating health professionals about sharing decisions with patients and patient-mediated interventions, such as patient decision aids, appear promising for improving health professionals' adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice as seen by patients.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research's (CIHR), Canada's premier health research funding agency, is moving forward in realizing a more systematic, ongoing integration of citizens' input in priority setting, governance and funding programs and tools. In 2008, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) developed a Framework for Citizen Engagement. This Framework establishes guidelines for implementing a more systematic approach to consulting and engaging citizens, such as in assessing the merit and relevance of research applications, developing strategic plans, setting research priorities and for strengthening their role on CIHR's governance committees. This paper describes the current context for public consultation in Canada's federal health care system, the new CIHR citizen engagement framework and discusses citizen engagement activities and efforts undertaken by CIHR institutes and branches. It reviews the methods used by CIHR to engage citizens in four key focus areas: 1. Representation on CIHR's Boards and Committees; 2. Corporate and Institute strategic plans, priorities, policies, and guidelines; 3. Research priority setting and integrated knowledge translation; 4. Knowledge dissemination and public outreach. In discussing CIHR's experiences, the paper identifies some of the challenges and benefits of engaging citizens in CIHR's research processes, including participating in decision making and informing strategic priorities.

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the practitioner and the patient and is said to be the crux of patient-centred care. Policy makers perceive SDM as desirable because of its potential to a) reduce overuse of options not clearly associated with benefits for all (e.g., prostate cancer screening); b) enhance the use of options clearly associated with benefits for the vast majority (e.g., cardiovascular risk factor management); c) reduce unwarranted healthcare practice variations; d) foster the sustainability of the healthcare system; and e) promote the right of patients to be involved in decisions concerning their health. Despite this potential, SDM has not yet been widely adopted in clinical practice., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM., Search Strategy: We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 March 2009: Cochrane Library (1970-), MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1976-), CINAHL (1982-) and PsycINFO (1965-). We found additional studies by reviewing a) the bibliographies of studies and reviews found in the electronic databases; b) the clinicaltrials.gov registry; and c) proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference and the conferences of the Society for Medical Decision Making. We included all languages of publication., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well-designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses) that evaluated any type of intervention that aimed to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of shared decision making. We defined adoption as the extent to which healthcare professionals intended to or actually engaged in SDM in clinical practice or/and used interventions known to facilitate SDM. We deemed studies eligible if the primary outcomes were evaluated with an objective measure of the adoption of SDM by healthcare professionals (e.g., a third-observer instrument)., Data Collection and Analysis: At least two reviewers independently screened each abstract for inclusion and abstracted data independently using a modified version of the EPOC data collection checklist. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes. We computed the standard effect size for each outcome separately with a 95% confidence interval. We evaluated global effects by calculating the median effect size and the range of effect sizes across studies., Main Results: The reviewers identified 6764 potentially relevant documents, of which we excluded 6582 by reviewing titles and abstracts. Of the remainder, we retrieved 182 full publications for more detailed screening. From these, we excluded 176 publications based on our inclusion criteria. This left in five studies, all RCTs. All five were conducted in ambulatory care: three in primary clinical care and two in specialised care. Four of the studies targeted physicians only and one targeted nurses only. In only two of the five RCTs was a statistically significant effect size associated with the intervention to have healthcare professionals adopt SDM. The first of these two studies compared a single intervention (a patient-mediated intervention: the Statin Choice decision aid) to another single intervention (also patient-mediated: a standard Mayo patient education pamphlet). In this study, the Statin Choice decision aid group performed better than the standard Mayo patient education pamphlet group (standard effect size = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.50). The other study compared a multifaceted intervention (distribution of educational material, educational meeting and audit and feedback) to usual care (control group) (standard effect size = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.90). This study was the only one to report an assessment of barriers prior to the elaboration of its multifaceted intervention., Authors' Conclusions: The results of this Cochrane review do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about the most effective types of intervention for increasing healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. Healthcare professional training may be important, as may the implementation of patient-mediated interventions such as decision aids. Given the paucity of evidence, however, those motivated by the ethical impetus to increase SDM in clinical practice will need to weigh the costs and potential benefits of interventions. Subsequent research should involve well-designed studies with adequate power and procedures to minimise bias so that they may improve estimates of the effects of interventions on healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. From a measurement perspective, consensus on how to assess professionals' adoption of SDM is desirable to facilitate cross-study comparisons.

Objective: The Preparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) scale was developed to evaluate decision processes relating to the preparation of patients for decision making and dialoguing with their practitioners. The objective of this study was to evaluate the scale's psychometric properties., Methods: From July 2005 to March 2006, after viewing a decision aid prescribed during routine clinical care, patients completed a questionnaire including: demographic information, treatment intention, decisional conflict, decision aid acceptability, and the PrepDM scale., Results: Four hundred orthopaedic patients completed the questionnaire. The PrepDM scale showed significant correlation with the informed (r=-0.21, p<0.01) and support (r=-0.13, p=0.01) subscales (DCS); and discriminated significantly between patients who did and did not find the decision aid helpful (p<0.0001). Alpha coefficients for internal consistency ranged from 0.92 to 0.96. The scale is strongly unidimensional (principal components analysis) and Item Response Theory analyses demonstrated that all ten scale items function very well., Conclusion: The psychometric properties of the PrepDM scale are very good., Practice Implications: The scale could allow more comprehensive evaluation of interventions designed to prepare patients for shared-decision making encounters regarding complex health care decisions.

Unlabelled: The purpose of this pilot study was to describe the decision-making needs of women with ovarian cancer related to treatment of recurrent disease., Design: A retrospective, cross-sectional needs assessment was conducted. Data were collected using face-to-face interviews and analyzed using content analysis., Results: Thirteen women were recruited. Eleven women did not report difficulty in making the decision. Five women perceived that they had options. Seven had a passive role in the decision. When considering future decisions, nine women preferred a shared or autonomous role; seven wanted to be presented with options. The role of nurses in providing information was emphasized., Conclusions: The findings provide some beginning direction for an inter-professional decision support approach, as well as implications for future research.

Objective: To appraise instruments used as primary outcome measures in trials measuring the effectiveness of patient decision support interventions., Methods: Primary outcome measures were identified in trials of patient decision aids included in the 2003 Cochrane Review. Instruments were appraised for: use in calculating sample size, appropriateness, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, acceptability, and feasibility., Results: Of the 35 trials, there were 35 unique primary outcome measures and 8 instruments were appraised. Actual or preferred choice was the primary outcome measure in 18 trials. Two instruments met at least 6 of 8 appraisal criteria: Control Preference Scale (n=2 trials) and Decisional Conflict Scale (n=5 trials). The Decision Conflict Scale was used to calculate sample size in 4 trials., Conclusion: Decision was the most consistent outcome measure. Most publications provided inadequate detail for appraising the instruments. Four instruments (Decisional Conflict, Control Preferences, Genetic Testing Knowledge Questionnaire, and McBride's Satisfaction with Decision) measured one or more International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria for evaluating effectiveness., Practice Implications: Selecting relevant and high quality outcome measures remains challenging and is an important area for further research in the field of shared decision making.

Objective: To update a systematic review on the barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice as perceived by health professionals., Methods: From March to December 2006, PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, PsycINFO, and Dissertation Abstracts were searched. Studies were included if they reported on health professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in practice. Quality of the included studies was assessed. Content analysis was performed with a pre-established taxonomy., Results: Out of 1130 titles, 10 new eligible studies were identified for a total of 38 included studies compared to 28 in the previous version. The vast majority of participants (n=3231) were physicians (89%). The three most often reported barriers were: time constraints (22/38) and lack of applicability due to patient characteristics (18/38) and the clinical situation (16/38). The three most often reported facilitators were: provider motivation (23/38) and positive impact on the clinical process (16/38) and patient outcomes (16/38)., Conclusion: This systematic review update confirms the results of the original review., Practice Implications: Interventions to foster implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice will need to address a range of factors.

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is defined as a process by which a healthcare choice is made by practitioners together with the patient. Although many diagnostic and therapeutic processes in primary care integrate more than one type of health professional, most SDM conceptual models and theories appear to be limited to the patient-physician dyad. The objectives of this study are to develop a conceptual model and propose a set of measurement tools for enhancing an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary healthcare., Methods/design: An inventory of SDM conceptual models, theories and measurement tools will be created. Models will be critically assessed and compared according to their strengths, limitations, acknowledgement of interprofessional roles in the process of SDM and relevance to primary care. Based on the theory analysis, a conceptual model and a set of measurements tools that could be used to enhance an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary healthcare will be proposed and pilot-tested with key stakeholders and primary healthcare teams., Discussion: This study protocol is informative for researchers and clinicians interested in designing and/or conducting future studies and educating health professionals to improve how primary healthcare teams foster active participation of patients in making health decisions using a more coordinated approach.

Objective: To describe primary health care professionals' views on barriers and facilitators for implementing the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) in their practice., Methods: Thirteen focus groups with 118 primary health care professionals were performed. A taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical practice guidelines was used to content-analyse the following sources: reports from each workshop, field notes from the principal investigator and written materials collected from the participants., Results: Applicability of the ODSF to the practice population, process outcome expectation, asking patients about their preferred role in decision making, perception that the ODSF was modifiable, time issues, familiarity with the ODSF and its practicability were the most frequently identified both as barriers as well as facilitators. Forgetting about the ODSF, interpretation of evidence, challenge to autonomy and total lack of agreement with using the ODSF in general were identified only as barriers. Asking about values, health professional's outcome expectation, compatibility with the patient-centered approach or the evidence-based approach, ease of understanding and implementation, and ease of communicating the ODSF were identified only as facilitators., Conclusion: These results provide insight on the type of interventions that could be developed in order to implement the ODSF in academic primary care practice., Practice Implications: Interventions to implement the ODSF in primary care practice will need to address a broad range of factors at the levels of the health professionals, the patients and the health care system.

Patient decision aids (ptDAs) have been developed to assist patients with difficult health-related decisions. Despite their proven effects on decision quality in numerous efficacy trials, we lack an evidence-based approach for implementing them as part of the process of care. Pragmatic trials of ptDAs have uncovered a myriad of implementation challenges; therefore we need a better understanding of the barriers and strategies to overcome them to facilitate their widespread uptake. The following paper provides an overview of the barriers related to the uptake of ptDAs within the process of care and the strategies, opportunities and research priorities to overcome them. This report is based on our interpretation of the literature and our collective experience in implementing ptDAs within trials and other contexts.

Objective: To explore factors associated with the difference in score between women's and doctors' decisional conflict about hormone therapy (HT)., Design: Secondary analysis., Setting and Participants: family doctors were randomized to prepare women for counselling about HT using either a decision aid or a pamphlet., Main Variables Studied: After each counselling session, decisional conflict was assessed in women and doctors using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and the Provider Decision Process Assessment Instrument (PDPAI), respectively. The difference in score between the DCS and PDPAI was computed and entered as the dependent variable in a multilevel regression analysis., Main Outcome Results: A total of 40 doctors and 167 women were included in the analysis. The intra-doctor correlation coefficient was 0.25. Factors associated with women experiencing higher decisional conflict than their doctor were: age of doctor >45 years, women who were undecided about the best choice after the counselling session, women with a university degree and women who said that their doctor usually does not give them control over treatment decision. Factors associated with doctors experiencing more decisional conflict than women were: doctors who were undecided about the quality of the decision, length of visit <30 min and women who thought that the decision was shared with their doctor., Conclusion: In order to reduce the disparities between women's and doctors' decisional conflict about HT, interventions aimed at raising awareness of doctors about shared decision-making should be encouraged.

Context: Shared decision-making programs, or patient decision aids, have been developed for difficult decisions in which patients need to consider benefits versus risks., Practice Pattern Examined: Decision aids currently used in practice in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada., Data Sources: Published studies of patients faced with decisions about hormone therapy, prenatal testing, lung cancer treatments, and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation; administrative data on distribution of decision aids; and a survey mailed to pulmonologists and surgeons., Results: Although most patients considering health care options arrive for counseling with strong predispositions toward a particular option, some are uncertain about their choice and express the need for information, clarification of values, and advice about their options. Decision aids prepare patients for decision making by increasing their knowledge about expected outcomes and personal values. The aids are used in our local centers, and more than 6000 kits have been distributed in Canada, the United States, Europe, and Australia. They primarily affect the decisions of patients who are undecided at baseline and sometimes reduce the proportion of patients who choose more intensive options., Conclusion: The Ottawa patient decision aids assist patient decision making, particularly among those who are undecided.