Evidence mapPaperPMID 33199416Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review.

Peter Scalia, Paul J Barr, Ciaran O'Neill, Grainne E Crealey, Pamela J Bagley, Heather B Blunt, Glyn Elwyn

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Patient preferences and willingness to pay for transitional care in breast cancer: a discrete choice experiment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Peter ScaliaThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5050-435X
Paul J BarrThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Ciaran O'NeillCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Grainne E CrealeyClinical Costing Solutions, Belfast, UK.
Pamela J BagleyDartmouth College Biomedical Libraries, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.
Heather B BluntDartmouth College Biomedical Libraries, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.
Glyn ElwynThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA glynelwyn@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0917-6286

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo update a previous systematic review to determine if patient decision aid (PDA) interventions generate savings in healthcare settings, and if so, from which perspective (ie, patient, organisation providing care, society).

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Campbell Collaboration Library, EconLit, Business Source Complete, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) from 15 March 2013 to 25 January 2019. The references of studies that met the eligibility criteria and any publications related to conference abstracts or registered clinical trials were reviewed to increase the sensitivity of the search. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Full and partial economic evaluations with an experimental, quasi-experimental or randomised controlled design were included. The intervention had to satisfy the pre-determined minimum conditions necessary to be defined as a PDA, and (for full evaluations) provide details on the comparator used. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: All study outcomes and economic data were extracted. The reporting and quality of the economic analyses were independently assessed by two health economists.

resultsOf 5066 studies, 22 studies were included, including the 8 studies from the previous review. Twelve studies reported cost-savings (range=US$10 to US$81 156; US dollars in 2020), primarily from the organisational or health system perspective, and 10 studies did not. However, due to the quality of the economic analyses, and the related issues with the interpretative validity of results it would be inappropriate to say that PDAs will generate savings, from any perspective.

conclusionsIt is unclear whether PDAs will generate savings. Greater consensus on what constitutes a PDA and the need to compare them against usual care over a sufficient time horizon to allow valid assessment of costs and outcomes is required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019118457.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisCost SavingsHumanshealth economicshealth policyquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID33199416
PMCPMC7670951

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.