-
Implementation Science : IS Jan 2019Shared decision-making (SDM) is rarely implemented in pediatric practice. Pediatric health decision-making differs from that of adult practice. Yet, little is known...
BACKGROUND
Shared decision-making (SDM) is rarely implemented in pediatric practice. Pediatric health decision-making differs from that of adult practice. Yet, little is known about the factors that influence the implementation of pediatric shared decision-making (SDM). We synthesized pediatric SDM barriers and facilitators from the perspectives of healthcare providers (HCP), parents, children, and observers (i.e., persons who evaluated the SDM process, but were not directly involved).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review guided by the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO (inception to March 2017) and included studies that reported clinical pediatric SDM barriers and/or facilitators from the perspective of HCPs, parents, children, and/or observers. We considered all or no comparison groups and included all study designs reporting original data. Content analysis was used to synthesize barriers and facilitators and categorized them according to the OMRU levels (i.e., decision, innovation, adopters, relational, and environment) and participant types (i.e., HCP, parents, children, and observers). We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to appraise study quality.
RESULTS
Of 20,008 identified citations, 79 were included. At each OMRU level, the most frequent barriers were features of the options (decision), poor quality information (innovation), parent/child emotional state (adopter), power relations (relational), and insufficient time (environment). The most frequent facilitators were low stake decisions (decision), good quality information (innovation), agreement with SDM (adopter), trust and respect (relational), and SDM tools/resources (environment). Across participant types, the most frequent barriers were insufficient time (HCPs), features of the options (parents), power imbalances (children), and HCP skill for SDM (observers). The most frequent facilitators were good quality information (HCP) and agreement with SDM (parents and children). There was no consistent facilitator category for observers. Overall, study quality was moderate with quantitative studies having the highest ratings and mixed-method studies having the lowest ratings.
CONCLUSIONS
Numerous diverse and interrelated factors influence SDM use in pediatric clinical practice. Our findings can be used to identify potential pediatric SDM barriers and facilitators, guide context-specific barrier and facilitator assessments, and inform interventions for implementing SDM in pediatric practice.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42015020527.
Topics: Adolescent; Attitude of Health Personnel; Child; Child Health Services; Child, Preschool; Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Making; Emotions; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Implementation Science; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Information Dissemination; Parents; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Patient Participation; Power, Psychological; Professional-Patient Relations; Workload
PubMed: 30658670
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0851-5 -
Medical Decision Making : An... Jan 2015Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the empirical evidence linking patient outcomes and SDM, when the decision-making process has been explicitly measured, and to identify under what measurement perspectives SDM is associated with which types of patient outcomes (affective-cognitive, behavioral, and health).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed (through December 2012) and hand search of article bibliographies.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included if they empirically 1) measured SDM in the context of a patient-clinician interaction and 2) evaluated the relationship between SDM and at least 1 patient outcome.
DATA EXTRACTION
Study results were categorized by SDM measurement perspective (patient-reported, clinician-reported, or observer-rated) and outcome type (affective-cognitive, behavioral, or health).
DATA SYNTHESIS
Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-three used patient-reported measures of SDM, 6 used observer-rated measures, and 2 used clinician-reported measures. Ninety-seven unique patient outcomes were assessed; 51% affective-cognitive, 28% behavioral, and 21% health. Only 43% of assessments (n = 42) found a significant and positive relationship between SDM and the patient outcome. This proportion varied by SDM measurement perspective and outcome category. It was found that 52% of outcomes assessed with patient-reported SDM were significant and positive, compared with 21% with observer-rated and 0% with clinician-reported SDM. Regardless of measurement perspective, SDM was most likely to be associated with affective-cognitive patient outcomes (54%), compared with 37% of behavioral and 25% of health outcomes.
LIMITATIONS
The relatively small number of studies precludes meta-analysis. Because the study inclusion and exclusion criteria required both an empirical measure of SDM and an assessment of the association between that measure and a patient outcome, most included studies were observational in design.
CONCLUSIONS
SDM, when perceived by patients as occurring, tends to result in improved affective-cognitive outcomes. Evidence is lacking for the association between empirical measures of SDM and patient behavioral and health outcomes.
Topics: Decision Making; Health Behavior; Humans; Patient Compliance; Patient Participation; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Trust
PubMed: 25351843
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14551638 -
BMJ Open Dec 2019To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is...
OBJECTIVES
To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Peer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM.
INFORMATION SOURCES
Academic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019.
RESULTS
Forty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall was the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were: ), ), ), ), and (53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time, and are the two components which are present in most models in any time period. stood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time.
CONCLUSIONS
This review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration CRD42015019740.
Topics: Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Making; Humans; Models, Theoretical; Patient Preference
PubMed: 31852700
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763 -
European Review For Medical and... Apr 2019This systematic review focuses on 5 key elements that may improve the decision-making process in spondylodiscitis: the infective agent, segmental instability, abscess...
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review focuses on 5 key elements that may improve the decision-making process in spondylodiscitis: the infective agent, segmental instability, abscess development, neurological compromise and focus of infection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We included 64 studies published between May 2012 and May 2017, that reported both a description of the discitis and comparative data regarding the disease and its complications.
RESULTS
The majority of cases were caused by Staphylococcus spp (40.3%) and involved the lumbosacral region (52.3%). 27.8% of cases were associated to neurological compromise, 30.4% developed an abscess, 6.6% were associated to instability, and 54.7% underwent surgery. The abscesses mostly involved the lumbosacral region (60.4%) with paravertebral localization; 32.6% of cases involved the thoracic region, showing mostly epidural localization; a small number of cases (7%) involved the cervical region, mostly with epidural localization. 95% of paravertebral abscesses were treated percutaneously, while 85.7% of epidural cases underwent "open" surgery. Spinal cord compression mainly occurred in the cervical region (55.9%), neurological deficit was observed in over half of cases (65%), and surgery was required in most of the cases (83.9%). The majority of cases of instability involved the lumbosacral region (53.3%) and underwent surgery (87%). The focus of infection was mostly lumbosacral (61%) and almost all cases (95%) were treated surgically.
CONCLUSIONS
Spondylodiscitis is a complex and multifactorial disease, whose diagnosis and management are still challenging. Due to its potential morbidity, it is extremely important to investigate the 5 key elements discussed in this paper in order to provide an early diagnosis and initiate the most effective treatment.
Topics: Decision Making; Discitis; Humans
PubMed: 30977878
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_201904_17481 -
Medicine Aug 2020Shared decision making (SDM) is a process within the physician-patient relationship applicable to any clinical action, whether diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Shared decision making (SDM) is a process within the physician-patient relationship applicable to any clinical action, whether diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive in nature. It has been defined as a process of mutual respect and participation between the doctor and the patient. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of decision aids (DA) in primary care based on changes in adherence to treatments, knowledge, and awareness of the disease, conflict with decisions, and patients' and health professionals' satisfaction with the intervention.
METHODS
A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials as study design; use of SDM with DA as an intervention; primary care as clinical context; written in English, Spanish, and Portuguese; and published between January 2007 and January 2019. The risk of bias of the included studies in this review was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.
RESULTS
Twenty four studies were selected out of the 201 references initially identified. With the use of DA, the use of antibiotics was reduced in cases of acute respiratory infection and decisional conflict was decreased when dealing with the treatment choice for atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis. The rate of determination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the prostate cancer screening decreased and colorectal cancer screening increased. Both professionals and patients increased their knowledge about depression, type 2 diabetes, and the perception of risk of acute myocardial infarction at 10 years without statins and with statins. The satisfaction was greater with the use of DA in choosing the treatment for depression, in cardiovascular risk management, in the treatment of low back pain, and in the use of statin therapy in diabetes. Blinding of outcomes assessment was the most common bias.
CONCLUSIONS
DA used in primary care are effective to reduce decisional conflict and improve knowledge on the disease and treatment options, awareness of risk, and satisfaction with the decisions made. More studies are needed to assess the impact of shared decision making in primary care.
Topics: Decision Making, Shared; Decision Support Techniques; Humans; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 32769870
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021389 -
BMC Health Services Research Jun 2019Advance care planning (ACP) is the process of ongoing communication among patients, family and health care professionals regarding what plans for future care are...
BACKGROUND
Advance care planning (ACP) is the process of ongoing communication among patients, family and health care professionals regarding what plans for future care are preferred in the event that patients become unable to make their own decisions. Clinicians play an important role in ACP as both initiators and decision coaches. However, lack of training for clinicians has frequently been reported as the reason for low involvement in ACP discussions - hence the present review evaluates the effectiveness of ACP training programs for healthcare professionals to guide the development of novel training programs for them in the future.
METHODS
A literature search for intervention studies was conducted independently by two reviewers in July 2018. Participants included all healthcare professionals working with adult patients suffering from terminal illness. The primary outcomes were the professionals' knowledge of and attitudes towards ACP, and self-perceived competence in ACP conversations. The Effective Public Health Practice Project appraisal tool was used to examine the quality of the studies included.
RESULTS
A total of 4025 articles were identified, and ten eligible articles, covering 1081 participants, were included in the review. However, there is a lack of high quality randomized controlled trials of providing ACP training for nurses working in non-palliative care hospital settings. The overall quality of the intervention studies was moderate. All the studies included used instructional sessions in their interventions, while some contained group discussion, role-play and the use of advanced technology. The training programs increased the knowledge, attitudes towards shared decision-making, perceived communication skills, confidence, comfort and experiences concerned with discussing end-of-life (EOL) issues. Patient advocacy, job satisfaction and perceived level of adequate training for EOL care were improved. The use of 'decision aids' was rated as acceptable and clinically useful.
CONCLUSIONS
Training for healthcare professionals in ACP has positive effects on their knowledge, attitude and skills. The use of decision aids and advanced technology, instructional sessions with role play, training content focused on ACP communication skills and the needs and experience of patient in the ACP process, and a values-based ACP process are all those factors that made the ACP training programs effective.
Topics: Advance Care Planning; Advance Directives; Decision Making; Evidence-Based Practice; Health Personnel; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31174530
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4192-0 -
Vaccine Oct 2017Many parents make a conscious decision not to vaccinate their child. Multiple beliefs and perceptions surround this choice. If uptake of routine child vaccination is to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many parents make a conscious decision not to vaccinate their child. Multiple beliefs and perceptions surround this choice. If uptake of routine child vaccination is to increase, public health communications about vaccines must be informed by evidence on the factors affecting uptake.
METHOD
We conducted a systematic review to investigate psychological, social and contextual factors associated with uptake of routine vaccines in young children. Studies were included if they reported analyses of the association between psychological factors and uptake or included parents' self-reported reasons for or against vaccination.
RESULTS
Our search identified 9110 citations after deduplication. Sixty-eight citations describing sixty-four studies were included in the review. The quality of the studies was mixed. There is strong evidence for an association between vaccination uptake and: not perceiving vaccines to cause adverse effects; general positive attitudes towards vaccination; positive vaccine recommendations; and perceiving fewer practical difficulties of vaccination. While there was good evidence for an association between vaccination and perceived susceptibility to the illness, evidence for an association between perceived severity of an illness and vaccination was weak. Other factors associated with vaccination include knowledge about the vaccine, social influences and trust in the healthcare profession. Having increased information about the vaccine was associated with vaccination, but the influence of different sources of information needs more research.
CONCLUSION
Understanding which factors are consistently associated with the decision to vaccinate one's child is important to identify messages which should be targeted by public health communications about routine child vaccinations.
Topics: Child; Decision Making; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Parents; Vaccination; Vaccines
PubMed: 28974409
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.046 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.
Topics: Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Health Personnel; Humans; Patient Education as Topic; Patient Participation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30025154
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub4 -
Implementation Science : IS Jul 2018To identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services.
BACKGROUND
To identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients' experiences of being engaged.
RESULTS
Forty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign-discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)-whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients' experiences of the engagement process (n = 12; 25%). While most experiences were positive-increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent-some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients' experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care.
REGISTRATION
N/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO).
Topics: Decision Making; Humans; Patient Participation; Quality Improvement; Quality of Health Care
PubMed: 30045735
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z -
BMC Women's Health Dec 2023Although there are calls for women's empowerment and gender equity globally, there are still large disparities regarding women's autonomy in healthcare decision making....
OBJECTIVES
Although there are calls for women's empowerment and gender equity globally, there are still large disparities regarding women's autonomy in healthcare decision making. The autonomy of women is believed to be crucial in improving their health-related outcomes. This review discusses factors that influence autonomy among women in healthcare decision making.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were searched from 2017-2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
The inclusion criteria include original articles, case studies and reports that has been written in the English Language, while manuscripts with no full article, reviews, newspaper reports, grey literatures, and articles that did not answer the review objectives were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We carried out data extraction using a standardized data extraction form, that has been organized using Microsoft Excel. A narrative synthesis was carried out to combine the findings of all included articles.
RESULTS
A total of 70 records were identified and 18 were reviewed, yielding eight articles to be included in the accepted list of studies. All studies were conducted in developing countries and most of the studies were cross sectional. Factors that were associated with women's autonomy in healthcare decision making were age, women's education and occupation, husbands'/partners' education and occupation, residential location or region of residence, household wealth index as well as culture and religion.
CONCLUSIONS
Identification of these factors may help stakeholders in improving women's autonomy in healthcare decision making. Policymakers play a crucial role in healthcare decision making by enacting laws and policies that protect women's rights, promoting gender-sensitive healthcare services, ensuring access to comprehensive information, promoting health education, and supporting vulnerable populations. These efforts ensure women's autonomy including able to access to unbiased and effective healthcare services.
Topics: Female; Humans; Women's Rights; Socioeconomic Factors; Gender Identity; Decision Making; Delivery of Health Care; Personal Autonomy
PubMed: 38042837
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-023-02792-4