The Application and Impact of Digital Patient Decision Aids in COPD : A Scoping Review
Journal of Clinical Nursing·
- DOI
- 10.1111/jocn.70505
- PMID
- —
- PMCID
- —
- OpenAlex
- W7203576845
- Study type
- Guideline
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
The review frames digital patient decision aids as a possible support for shared decision-making in COPD, with outcome evidence centered on decision quality and user experience measures.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The review asked how digital patient decision aids have been used in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, what decision-making themes and content they cover, and what outcome evidence has been reported.
Study design
Scoping review reported in line with PRISMA-ScR, based on searches of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase through 31 July 2025.
Population and setting
The review concerns patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with tools used in family, community, or hospital settings.
Main findings
Nine studies were included. The tools mainly addressed pulmonary rehabilitation and mechanical ventilation, and were delivered through web pages, recordings, or clinical decision support systems. Reported outcomes commonly included decision-making conflict, with some attention to satisfaction, acceptability, and knowledge. The authors describe a preliminary positive trend, but note that the evidence base is small and heterogeneous.
Public-health relevance
The review frames digital patient decision aids as a possible support for shared decision-making in COPD, with outcome evidence centered on decision quality and user experience measures.
Important limitations
The evidence base was limited to nine studies with heterogeneous designs. The abstract also states that larger, well-designed trials are needed for stronger assessment of sustained decision-making and long-term clinical effects.
GIDS interpretation
This is a scoping review on digital patient decision aids in COPD and is useful for literature context and topic discovery. It does not provide a live surveillance signal, and the summary should be read as limited to the supplied abstract and metadata.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 7 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.