The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids
Abstract
Decision aids for patients have recently been introduced in health care. A literature review was conducted to address the following research questions: 1) which types of decision aids have been developed?; 2) to what extent are they feasible, and acceptable to patients and health care providers?; 3) do decision aids affect the decision-making process and patients' outcomes? Thirty non-controlled (e.g., one-group-only designs) and controlled studies (e.g., randomized experimental designs) were identified. Decision aids were found to be feasible and acceptable to patients and to increase the agreement between patients' values and decisions and patients' knowledge. The effects of decision aids on decisions and on patients' outcomes, including decision uncertainty, satisfaction, and health, have rarely been addressed. When studied, the beneficial effects of decision aids on these outcomes appear to be rather modest. Implications for future development of decision aids and the design of studies are discussed. Key words: shared decision making; patient decision aids. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:112-127)
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
Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature
Ong, L. M. L., de Haes, J. C. J. M., Hoos, A. M., & Lammes, F. B. (1995) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)00155-m · Cited by 2,430
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
Elwyn, G. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.ae · Cited by 1,824
Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention
Sheridan, S. L., Harris, R. P., & Woolf, S. H. (2004) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.011 · Cited by 441
Han, P. K. J., Moser, R. P., & Klein, W. M. P. (2007) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00456.x · Cited by 124
Metadata
- Authors
- Molenaar, S., Sprangers, M. A. G., Postma-Schuit, F. C. E., Rutgers, E. J. T., Noorlander, J., Hendriks, J., & De Haes, H. C. J. M.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 112-127
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2111886152
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 35.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0272989x0002000114
- The paper
- Molenaar, S., Sprangers, M. A. G., Postma-Schuit, F. C. E., Rutgers, E. J. T., Noorlander, J., Hendriks, J., & De Haes, H. C. J. M. (2000). Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x0002000114
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.
