Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are effective interventions to support patient involvement in health decisions and have the potential to impact favourably on health inequities by reducing gender bias in clinical practice. The aim was to explore sex and gender reporting and differences in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PtDAs for adults making treatment or screening decisions.

Secondary analysis of the Cochrane review of PtDAs of RCTs that reported sex and/or gender. The original review searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO and EBSCO from journal inception to March 2022. Two team members independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For this secondary analysis, we only included primary outcomes from the original review. We assessed appropriate use of terminology for sex (biological attribute) and gender (social construct). When terms were used interchangeably, it was considered inaccurate. Findings were synthesised descriptively, and we used meta-analysis when two or more RCTs were conducted with females/women or males/men using similar outcome measures.

Informed values-choice congruence and the quality of the decision-making process (eg, knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision making, undecided) and adverse events (eg, decision regret, emotional distress) by sex and gender.

Of 209 RCTs in the original review, 206 reported sex and/or gender, with 35 (17%) using accurate terminology. Of 206 RCTs, 70 were with females/women only, 27 males/men only, 12 analysed by sex/gender and 97 RCTs did not disaggregate findings by sex or gender. Meta-analysis comparing RCTs for females/women to usual care and RCTs for males/men only compared with usual care showed similar mean differences in knowledge scores (10.84 vs 9.38 out of 100; p=0.44). Males/men had significantly higher self-reported participation in decision making compared with females/women (RR 3.16 vs 0.95; p

In PtDA RCTs, sex and gender terms are used interchangeably and 6% analysed outcomes by sex or gender. Meta-analysis of males/men only given PtDAs showed higher self-reported decision making participation in clinical practice compared to usual care versus females/women only compared with usual care. Researchers must improve reporting sex and gender in PtDA RCTs to assess how it influences health inequities.

Given that low retention rates are a prevalent challenge in clinical trials, which ultimately affects trial validity, it is recommended that interventions be developed and evaluated to increase trial retention. In the context of trial retention, incorporating behavioural science is endorsed, as it provides a theoretical foundation for considering human behaviour. We hypothesised that an intervention informed by self-determination theory could increase retention in a randomised allergy trial on intralymphatic immunotherapy, as the support of basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness is anticipated to lead to more sustained engagement and better outcomes.

To assess the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and evaluation design, following the complex intervention framework by the Medical Research Council, before proceeding to a randomised evaluation.

A parallel two-arm randomised feasibility study was conducted within the randomised allergy trial.

All participants at one Danish site were eligible for recruitment.

The intervention was a web app informed by self-determination theory to support the basic psychological needs through its thoughtfully designed features. Participants were allocated unblinded across treatment groups to complete daily online questionnaires over a 100-day period from May to August 2022. All participants received a daily text message with a link for the questionnaires. On completion, participants in the control group received a confirmation message, while participants in the intervention group had a browser with the menu of the web app opened for them. The features within the menu were voluntary to use.

The prespecified assessments included evaluating the recruitment rate, retention rate (which reflected both sustained participation and the proportion of completed daily questionnaire entries), the suitability of outcome measures and the acceptability of the intervention and evaluation design to both participants and staff. Qualitative data were collected through a collaborative learning process with participants from the intervention group in November 2022.

A total of 30 participants were invited, randomly assigned 1:1 and analysed, resulting in a recruitment rate of 100%. None were lost to follow-up as all remained in the study for the entire duration. The response rate was 84.5% in the intervention group and 79.1% in the control group, indicating satisfactory retention. Outcome measures were deemed appropriate. No unintended adverse events were identified. The collaborative learning meetings involved three participants in the first meeting and two in the second, comprising a total of five different individuals. Participants found the intervention acceptable. They used it differently but agreed that its components were useful. Technical issues needed fixing, and voluntary free text boxes and registration of medication dosage should be added.

The intervention and evaluation design were assessed as acceptable and feasible. Technical issues were fixed, and additional response options were added before a randomised evaluation.

ILIT.NU: EudraCT 2020-001060-28. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05191186.