The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of randomised trials of patient decision aids in improving decision making and outcomes. DESIGN: We included randomised trials of interventions providing structured, detailed, and specific information on treatment or screening options and outcomes to aid decision making. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data on several evaluation criteria. Results were pooled by using weighted mean differences and relative risks. RESULTS: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the controls, decision aids produced higher knowledge scores (weighted mean difference=19/100, 95% confidence interval 14 to 25); lower decisional conflict scores (weighted mean difference=-0.3/5, -0.4 to -0.1); more active patient participation in decision making (relative risk = 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1. 3 to 4); and no differences in anxiety, satisfaction with decisions (weighted mean difference=0.6/100, -3 to 4), or satisfaction with the decision making process (2/100,-3 to 7). Decision aids had a variable effect on decisions. When complex decision aids were compared with simpler versions, they were better at reducing decisional conflict, improved knowledge marginally, but did not affect satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids improve knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and stimulate patients to be more active in decision making without increasing their anxiety. Decision aids have little effect on satisfaction and a variable effect on decisions. The effects on outcomes of decisions (persistence with choice, quality of life) remain uncertain.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137
O'Connor, A. M., Tugwell, P., Wells, G. A., Elmslie, T., Jolly, E., Hollingworth, G., McPherson, R., Bunn, H., Graham, I., & Drake, E. (1998) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(98)00026-3 · Cited by 638
Self-citationIncorporating Patients' Preferences into Medical Decisions
Kassirer, J. P. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199406303302611 · Cited by 415
Empowerment of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer
Davison, B. J., & Degner, L. F. (1997) · CANCER NURSING · doi:10.1097/00002820-199706000-00004 · Cited by 356
Lerman, C., Kerner, J., Gomez-Caminero, A., Hughes, C., Reed, M. M., Biesecker, B., & Benkendorf, J. L. (1997) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/89.2.148 · Cited by 355
The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer
Members of the Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team, Flood, A. B., Wennberg, J. E., Nease, R. F., Fowler, F. J., Ding, J., & Hynes, L. M. (1996) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02600045 · Cited by 272
Guidelines for Counseling Postmenopausal Women about Preventive Hormone Therapy
(1992) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-117-12-1038 · Cited by 259
O'Connor, A. M., Tugwell, P., Wells, G. A., Elmslie, T., Jolly, E., Hollingworth, G., Mcpherson, R., Drake, E., Hopman, W., & Mackenzie, T. (1998) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x9801800307 · Cited by 248
Self-citationO'Connor, A. M., Fiset, V., DeGrasse, C., Graham, I. D., Evans, W., Stacey, D., Laupacis, A., & Tugwell, P. (1999) · JNCI Monographs · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024212 · Cited by 239
Self-citationA manual for assessing health practices & designing practice policies : the explicit approach
Eddy, D. M. (1992) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 218
Cited by
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
Self-citationValidation of a Decision Regret Scale
Brehaut, J. C., O'Connor, A. M., Wood, T. J., Hack, T. F., Siminoff, L., Gordon, E., & Feldman-Stewart, D. (2003) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x03256005 · Cited by 1,452
Self-citationLittle, P., Everitt, H., Williamson, I., Warner, G., Moore, M., Gould, C., Ferrier, K., & Payne, S. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7284.468 · Cited by 766
Costs and benefits of health information technology.
Shekelle, P. G., Morton, S. C., & Keeler, E. B. (2006) · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcerta132 · Cited by 501
Shared Decision Making and Medication Management in the Recovery Process
Deegan, P. E., & Drake, R. E. (2006) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.57.11.1636 · Cited by 490
Metadata
- Authors
- O'Connor, A. M., Rostom, A., Fiset, V., Tetroe, J., Entwistle, V., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Holmes-Rovner, M., Barry, M., & Jones, J.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1999-09-18
- Volume
- 319
- Issue
- 7212
- Pages
- 731-734
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2124463811
- Cited by
- 873
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 17.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.731
- The paper
- O'Connor, A. M., Rostom, A., Fiset, V., Tetroe, J., Entwistle, V., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Holmes-Rovner, M., Barry, M., & Jones, J. (1999). Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.731
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
