Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/17837
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFagerlin, Angelaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorPignone, Michaelen_UK
dc.contributor.authorAbhyankar, Purvaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorCol, Nanandaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorFeldman-Stewart, Deben_UK
dc.contributor.authorGavaruzzi, Teresaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorKryworuchko, Jenniferen_UK
dc.contributor.authorLevin, Carrie Aen_UK
dc.contributor.authorPieterse, Arwenen_UK
dc.contributor.authorReyna, Valerieen_UK
dc.contributor.authorStiggelbout, Anneen_UK
dc.contributor.authorScherer, Laura Den_UK
dc.contributor.authorWills, Celiaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorWitteman, Hollyen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-19T22:50:12Z-
dc.date.available2018-04-19T22:50:12Z-
dc.date.issued2013-11-29en_UK
dc.identifier.otherS8en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/17837-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids. Methods: Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary. Results: Values clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single "best" practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect. Conclusions: Values clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltden_UK
dc.relationFagerlin A, Pignone M, Abhyankar P, Col N, Feldman-Stewart D, Gavaruzzi T, Kryworuchko J, Levin CA, Pieterse A, Reyna V, Stiggelbout A, Scherer LD, Wills C & Witteman H (2013) Clarifying Values: An updated review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13 (Suppl 2), Art. No.: S8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S8en_UK
dc.rights© 2013 Fagerlin et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/en_UK
dc.titleClarifying Values: An updated reviewen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S8en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Makingen_UK
dc.citation.issn1472-6947en_UK
dc.citation.volume13en_UK
dc.citation.issueSuppl 2en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emailpurva.abhyankar@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Michiganen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of North Carolina At Chapel Hillen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationNMAHPen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of New Englanden_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationQueen's University, Ontarioen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Paduaen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Saskatchewanen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationInformed Medical Decisions Foundation, Boston, MAen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationLeiden University Medical Centeren_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationCornell Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationLeiden University Medical Centeren_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Missouri - Columbiaen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationOhio State Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Michiganen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000328324000008en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84889688871en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid887491en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-0779-6588en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2013-11-29en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2013-12-02en_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorFagerlin, Angela|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorPignone, Michael|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorAbhyankar, Purva|0000-0002-0779-6588en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCol, Nananda|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorFeldman-Stewart, Deb|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorGavaruzzi, Teresa|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorKryworuchko, Jennifer|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorLevin, Carrie A|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorPieterse, Arwen|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorReyna, Valerie|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorStiggelbout, Anne|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorScherer, Laura D|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWills, Celia|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWitteman, Holly|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2013-12-02en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/|2013-12-02|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameFagerlin et al- Clarifying Values BMC 2013.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fagerlin et al- Clarifying Values BMC 2013.pdfFulltext - Published Version183.3 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.