How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities

Romy Richter; Jesse Jansen; Josine van der Kraan; Wais Abbaspoor; Iris Bongaerts; Fleur Pouwels; Celine Vilters; Jany Rademakers; Trudy van der Weijden

doi:10.1177/0272989X241302288

How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities

Med Decis Making. 2024 Dec 14:272989X241302288. doi: 10.1177/0272989X241302288. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Romy Richter¹, Jesse Jansen¹, Josine van der Kraan², Wais Abbaspoor¹, Iris Bongaerts¹, Fleur Pouwels¹, Celine Vilters¹, Jany Rademakers^{1

3}, Trudy van der Weijden¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
² Netherlands Patients Federation, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
³ Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel), Utrecht, the Netherlands.

PMID: 39673417
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241302288

Abstract

Objective: Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can support shared decision making. We aimed to explore how inclusive PtDAs are for people with limited health literacy (LHL) by analyzing 1) the understandability of PtDAs using established criteria, 2) how options and probabilities of outcomes are communicated, and 3) the extent to which risk communication (RC) guidelines are followed.

Methods: In a descriptive document analysis, we analyzed Dutch PtDAs available in 2021 that met the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. We developed and pilot tested a data extraction form based on key RC and health literacy literature.

Results: Most PtDAs (151/198) met most of the understandability criteria on layout (7-8 out of 8 items) such as font size but not on content aspects (121/198 PtDAs scored 5-7 out of 12 items) such as defining medical terms. Only 31 of 198 PtDAs used a short and simple sentence structure. Most PtDAs presented 2 to 4 treatment options. Many followed RC recommendations such as the use of numerical RC strategies such as percentages or natural frequencies (160/198) and visual formats such as icon arrays (91/198). Only 10 used neutral framing (10/198). When presented, uncertainty was presented verbally (134/198) or in ranges (58/198). Four PtDAs were co-created together with patients with LHL and used only verbal RC or no RC.

Conclusion: Most PtDAs met most of the understandability criteria on layout, but content aspects and adherence to RC strategies can be improved. Many PtDAs used long sentences and mostly verbal RC and are therefore likely to be inappropriate for patients with LHL. Further research is needed on PtDA characteristics and RC strategies suitable for people with LHL.

Highlights: Despite meeting most criteria for understandability, many of the Dutch PtDAs use long sentences, which likely impede comprehension for patients with LHL.Most of the Dutch PtDAs follow established recommendations for risk communication, with room for improvement for some strategies such as framing and a clear reference to the time frame.Overall, more research is needed to tailor PtDAs to the needs of people with LHL.

Keywords: health literacy; patient decision aids; risk communication; shared decision making.