Computerised decision aids: a systematic review of their effectiveness in facilitating high-quality decision-making in various health-related contexts.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review existing empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of computerised decision aids (CDAs) in enabling high-quality decision-making in preference-sensitive health-related contexts. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified via Medline, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases (1990-October 2010). Only randomised controlled trials with at least one decision quality or decision process variable outcome were included. RESULTS: Of 1467 identified articles, 28 studies met all inclusion criteria, evaluating 26 unique CDAs. CDAs performed better than standard consultations/education regarding improved knowledge and lower decisional conflict, and were found not to increase anxiety. CDAs facilitated greater satisfaction with the decision-making process than standard education. The effects on risk perceptions, value congruence with the chosen option, preferred roles in decision-making and decisional self-efficacy need further evaluation. A paucity of CDAs adhered to decision theories. CONCLUSIONS: CDAs showed similar effects as non-computerised DAs on various outcomes. Further research into the potentially superior effects of CDAs on feeling informed, values-clarity, and decisional conflict is required. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The more remarkable effects on knowledge and risk perceptions were reported when unique features of interactive computerised media were used. The potential benefit of tailored information, values-clarification, and integration of CDAs into shared decision-making consultations remains unresolved.