Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence is lacking on the most effective values clarification methods (VCMs) in patient decision aids (PtDAs). We tested the effects of an adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA)-based VCM compared with a ranking-based VCM and no VCM on several decision-related outcomes, with the decisional conflict and its subscale "perceived values clarity" as primary outcomes. DESIGN: Online experimental study with 3 conditions: no VCM versus ranking-based VCM versus ACA-based VCM (N = 282; M(age) = 63.11 y, s = 12.12), with the latter 2 conditions including attributes important for a lung cancer treatment decision. We assessed 1) decisional conflict, 2) perceived values clarity (decisional conflict subscale), 3) perceived cognitive load, 4) anticipated regret, 5) ambivalence, 6) preparedness for decision making, 7) hypothetical treatment preference, and 8) values congruence (proxy). We performed analysis of covariance and linear regression. Age and level of deliberation were included as potential moderators, and we controlled for subjective numeracy (covariate). We exploratively tested the moderating effects of subjective numeracy and health literacy (without covariates). RESULTS: We found no significant effect of type of VCM on overall decisional conflict or perceived values clarity. Age had a moderating effect: in younger participants, no VCM (v. ranking-based VCM) led to more values clarity, while in older participants, a ranking-based VCM (v. no VCM) led to more values clarity. Completing the ACA-based VCM, compared with no VCM, resulted in more values congruence. LIMITATIONS: The hypothetical choice situation might have induced lower levels of cognitive/affective involvement in the decision. CONCLUSIONS: This study found mixed effects of an ACA-based VCM. It did not decrease decisional conflict or increase perceived values clarity, yet it did improve values congruence. IMPLICATIONS: Completion of an ACA-based VCM in a PtDA may increase values congruence. HIGHLIGHTS: An adaptive conjoint analysis or a ranking-based values clarification method did not decrease analog patients' decisional conflict nor did it increase their perceived values clarity.In younger participants, no VCM (v. ranking-based VCM) led to more values clarity, while in older participants, a ranking-based VCM (v. no VCM) led to more values clarity.An adaptive conjoint analysis task for values clarification resulted in more values congruence.