-
PloS One 2018To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies.
METHODS
In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397.
RESULTS
We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.
Topics: Decision Making; Reproducibility of Results; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 29447193
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191747 -
Implementation Science : IS Jan 2016We completed a scoping review on the barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers, including consideration of format... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
We completed a scoping review on the barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers, including consideration of format and content, to develop recommendations for systematic review authors and to inform research efforts to develop and test formats for systematic reviews that may optimise their uptake.
METHODS
We used the Arksey and O'Malley approach for our scoping review. Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo) were searched from inception until September 2014. Any study that identified barriers or facilitators (including format and content features) to uptake of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers/analysts was eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the literature results and abstracted data from the relevant studies. The identified barriers and facilitators were charted using a barriers and facilitators taxonomy for implementing clinical practice guidelines by clinicians.
RESULTS
We identified useful information for authors of systematic reviews to inform their preparation of reviews including providing one-page summaries with key messages, tailored to the relevant audience. Moreover, partnerships between researchers and policy makers/managers to facilitate the conduct and use of systematic reviews should be considered to enhance relevance of reviews and thereby influence uptake.
CONCLUSIONS
Systematic review authors can consider our results when publishing their systematic reviews. These strategies should be rigorously evaluated to determine impact on use of reviews in decision-making.
Topics: Administrative Personnel; Attitude of Health Personnel; Decision Making; Delivery of Health Care; Evidence-Based Medicine; Health Facility Administrators; Health Services Administration; Humans; Policy Making; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 26753923
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-016-0370-1 -
PloS One 2017The Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) is a 9-item measure of the decisional process in medical encounters from both patients' and physicians'... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) is a 9-item measure of the decisional process in medical encounters from both patients' and physicians' perspectives. It has good acceptance, feasibility, and reliability. This systematic review aimed to 1) evaluate the use of the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc in intervention studies on shared decision making (SDM) in clinical settings, 2) describe how the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc performed regarding sensitivity to change, and 3) assess the methodological quality of studies and study protocols that use the measure.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 2010 and October 2015 that evaluated interventions to facilitate SDM. The search strategy comprised three databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Medline), reference tracking, citation tracking, and personal knowledge. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts as well as full texts of potentially relevant records. We extracted the data using a pilot tested sheet, and we assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment Tools from the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH).
RESULTS
Five completed studies and six study protocols fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The measure was used in a variety of health care settings, mainly in Europe, to evaluate several types of interventions. The reported mean sum scores ranged from 42 to 75 on a scale from 0 to 100. In four studies no significant change was detected in the mean-differences between main groups. In the fifth study the difference was small. Quality assessment revealed a high risk of bias in four of the five completed studies, while the study protocols received moderate quality ratings.
CONCLUSIONS
We found a wide range of areas in which the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc were applied. In the future this review may help researchers decide whether the measure fits their purposes. Furthermore, the review revealed risk of bias in previous trials that used the measure, and may help future trials decrease this risk. More research on the measure's sensitivity to change is strongly suggested.
Topics: Decision Making; Humans; Patient Participation; Physician-Patient Relations; Physicians; Psychometrics; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 28358864
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173904 -
Health Expectations : An International... Oct 2015Shared decision making (SDM) requires health professionals to change their practice. Socio-cognitive theories, such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), provide the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Shared decision making (SDM) requires health professionals to change their practice. Socio-cognitive theories, such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), provide the needed theoretical underpinnings for designing behaviour change interventions.
OBJECTIVE
We systematically reviewed studies that used the TPB to assess SDM behaviours in health professionals to explore how theory is being used to explain influences on SDM intentions and/or behaviours, and which construct is identified as most influential.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Index to theses, Proquest dissertations and Current Contents for all years up to April 2012.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
We included all studies in French or English that used the TPB and related socio-cognitive theories to assess SDM behavioural intentions or behaviours in health professionals. We used Makoul & Clayman's integrative SDM model to identify SDM behaviours.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We extracted study characteristics, nature of the socio-cognitive theory, SDM behaviour, and theory-based determinants of the SDM behavioural intention or behaviour. We computed simple frequency counts.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 12,388 titles, we assessed 136 full-text articles for eligibility. We kept 20 eligible studies, all published in English between 1996 and 2012. Studies were conducted in Canada (n = 8), the USA (n = 6), the Netherlands (n = 3), the United Kingdom (n = 2) and Australia (n = 1). The determinant most frequently and significantly associated with intention was the subjective norm (n = 15/21 analyses).
DISCUSSION
There was great variance in the way socio-cognitive theories predicted SDM intention and/or behaviour, but frequency of significance indicated that subjective norm was most influential.
Topics: Attitude of Health Personnel; Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Humans; Models, Psychological; Patient Participation
PubMed: 24528502
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12176 -
Revista de Saude Publica Jan 2017To analyze the conceptualization of the term governance on public mental health programs. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the conceptualization of the term governance on public mental health programs.
METHODS
In this systematic review, we analyzed the scientific literature published in the international scenario during 15 years (from 2000 to 2015). The databases analyzed were: Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PubMed. Governance and mental health were the descriptors. We included relevant articles according to our subject of study and levels of analysis: (i) the concept of governance in mental health; (ii) process and decision spaces; (iii) strategic and pertinent actors who operate in the functioning of the health system, and (iv) social regulations. We excluded letters to the editor, news articles, comments and case reports, incomplete articles and articles whose approach did not include the object of study of this review.
RESULTS
We have found five conceptualizations of the term governance on mental health in the area of provision policies and service organization. The agents were both those who offer and those who receive the services: we identified several social norms.
CONCLUSIONS
The concept of governance in mental health includes standards of quality and attention centered on the patient, and incorporates the consumers of mental healthcare in the decision-making process.
OBJETIVO
Analizar la conceptualización del término gobernanza en las políticas de salud mental.
MÉTODOS
En esta revisión sistemática se analizó literatura científica publicada en el ámbito internacional durante 15 años (de 2000 hasta 2015). Las bases de datos analizadas fueron: Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO y PubMed. Los descriptores fueron gobernanza y salud mental. Fueron incluidos artículos relevantes de acuerdo a nuestro objeto de estudio y niveles de análisis: (i) concepto de gobernanza en salud mental; (ii) proceso y espacios de decisión; (iii) actores estratégicos y de interés que intervienen en el funcionamiento del sistema de salud, y (iv) normas sociales. Se excluyeron cartas al editor, noticias, comentarios y reporte de caso, artículos incompletos y artículos que no incluyeran en su abordaje el objeto de estudio de esta revisión.
RESULTADOS
Se reportaron cinco conceptualizaciones del término gobernanza en salud mental en el ámbito de políticas de provisión y organización de servicios. Los actores fueron desde proveedores a usuarios de servicios; se identificaron diversas normas sociales.
CONCLUSIONES
El concepto de gobernanza en salud mental incorpora estándares de calidad y atención centrada en el paciente, e incluye a los usuarios en la toma de decisiones.
Topics: Decision Making; Government Regulation; Health Policy; Humans; Mental Health; Mental Health Services; Quality of Health Care; Social Norms
PubMed: 28146159
DOI: 10.1590/S1518-8787.2017051006991 -
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Oct 2021To determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) compared to alternative interventions (including usual care) on decision quality and quality of the...
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) compared to alternative interventions (including usual care) on decision quality and quality of the decision-making process for adults with hip and knee osteoarthritis considering primary elective total joint arthroplasty.
METHODS
A systematic review guided by Cochrane methods and PRISMA reporting guidelines. Studies were searched in five databases. Included studies were RCTs evaluating the effect of PtDAs on total joint arthroplasty decision-making. Study quality was appraised with Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Quality and strength of recommendations were appraised with GRADE.
RESULTS
Ten included studies were conducted in North American using the same PtDA. Compared to usual care, PtDA groups demonstrated increased decision quality (e.g., higher knowledge, more informed values-based choices) and quality of the decision making process (e.g., decreased decisional conflict) (6 trials). Secondary outcomes showed increased surgeon satisfaction within the consultation and no difference in patient satisfaction or uptake of the chosen option (surgery: RR 1.03, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.25; I = 66%; 4 trials). When PtDAs formtats were compared, there were similar effects but no difference between PtDAs (4 trials).
CONCLUSIONS
There was low to very low GRADE certainty of evidence for the effect of PtDAs on decision quality and quality of the decision-making process compared to usual care. No differences were found when different formats of PtDAs were compared (moderate to very low GRADE certainty of evidence).
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Humans
PubMed: 34302958
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2021.07.006 -
Canadian Journal of Surgery. Journal... Feb 2018Interest in surgical careers among medical students has declined over the past decade. Multiple explanations have been offered for why top students are deterred or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Interest in surgical careers among medical students has declined over the past decade. Multiple explanations have been offered for why top students are deterred or rejected from surgical programs, though no consensus has emerged.
METHODS
We conducted a review of the literature to better characterize what factors affect the pursuit of a surgical career. We searched PubMed and EMBASE and performed additional reference checks. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and Newcastle-Ottawa Education scores were used to evaluate the included data.
RESULTS
Our search identified 122 full-text, primary articles. Analysis of this evidence identified 3 core concepts that impact surgical career decision-making: gender, features of surgical education, and student "fit" in the culture of surgery.
CONCLUSION
Real and perceived gender discrimination has deterred female medical students from entering surgical careers. In addition, limited exposure to surgery during medical school and differences between student and surgeon personality traits and values may deter students from entering surgical careers. We suggest that deliberate and visible effort to include women and early-career medical students in surgical settings may enhance their interest in carreers in surgery.
Topics: Adult; Career Choice; Female; General Surgery; Humans; Internship and Residency; Male; Students, Medical
PubMed: 29368678
DOI: 10.1503/cjs.008217 -
BMC Geriatrics Feb 2021The aim of this study was to describe barriers and facilitators for shared decision making (SDM) as experienced by older patients with multiple chronic conditions... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to describe barriers and facilitators for shared decision making (SDM) as experienced by older patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs), informal caregivers and health professionals.
METHODS
A structured literature search was conducted with 5 databases. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and performed a quality assessment. The results from the included studies were summarized using a predefined taxonomy.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 3838 articles. Twenty-eight studies, listing 149 perceived barriers and 67 perceived facilitators for SDM, were included. Due to poor health and cognitive and/or physical impairments, older patients with MCCs participate less in SDM. Poor interpersonal skills of health professionals are perceived as hampering SDM, as do organizational barriers, such as pressure for time and high turnover of patients. However, among older patients with MCCs, SDM could be facilitated when patients share information about personal values, priorities and preferences, as well as information about quality of life and functional status. Informal caregivers may facilitate SDM by assisting patients with decision support, although informal caregivers can also complicate the SDM process, for example, when they have different views on treatment or the patient's capability to be involved. Coordination of care when multiple health professionals are involved is perceived as important.
CONCLUSIONS
Although poor health is perceived as a barrier to participate in SDM, the personal experience of living with MCCs is considered valuable input in SDM. An explicit invitation to participate in SDM is important to older adults. Health professionals need a supporting organizational context and good communication skills to devise an individualized approach for patient care.
Topics: Aged; Caregivers; Decision Making; Decision Making, Shared; Humans; Multiple Chronic Conditions; Patient Participation; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33549059
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-021-02050-y -
BMC Palliative Care Jun 2022With paediatric patients, deciding whether to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatments (LST) at the end of life is difficult and ethically sensitive. Little is...
BACKGROUND
With paediatric patients, deciding whether to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatments (LST) at the end of life is difficult and ethically sensitive. Little is understood about how and why physicians decide on withholding/withdrawing LST at the end of life in paediatric patients. In this study, we aimed to synthesise results from the literature on physicians' perceptions about decision-making when dealing with withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in paediatric patients.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of empirical qualitative studies. Five electronic databases (Pubmed, Cinahl®, Embase®, Scopus®, Web of Science™) were exhaustively searched in order to identify articles published in English from inception through March 17, 2021. Analysis and synthesis were guided by the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven.
RESULTS
Thirty publications met our criteria and were included for analysis. Overall, we found that physicians agreed to involve parents, and to a lesser extent, children in the decision-making process about withholding/withdrawing LST. Our analysis to identify conceptual schemes revealed that physicians divided their decision-making into three stages: (1) early preparation via advance care planning, (2) information giving and receiving, and (3) arriving at the final decision. Physicians considered advocating for the best interests of the child and of the parents as their major focus. We also identified moderating factors of decision-making, such as facilitators and barriers, specifically those related to physicians and parents that influenced physicians' decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS
By focusing on stakeholders, structure of the decision-making process, ethical values, and influencing factors, our analysis showed that physicians generally agreed to share the decision-making with parents and the child, especially for adolescents. Further research is required to better understand how to minimise the negative impact of barriers on the decision-making process (e.g., difficult involvement of children, lack of paediatric palliative care expertise, conflict with parents).
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Death; Decision Making; Humans; Palliative Care; Physicians; Qualitative Research; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 35751075
DOI: 10.1186/s12904-022-01003-5 -
Health Expectations : An International... Dec 2015The use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in health care has become common. However, the literature lacks systematic review trend analysis on the application of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in health care has become common. However, the literature lacks systematic review trend analysis on the application of MCDA in health care.
AIM
To systematically identify applications of MCDA to the areas of health care, and to report on publication trends.
METHODS
English language studies published from January 1, 1980 until October 1, 2013 were included. Electronic databases searches were supplemented by searching conference proceedings and relevant journals. Studies considered for inclusion were those using MCDA techniques within the areas of health care, and involving the participation of decision makers. A bibliometric analysis was undertaken to present the publication trends.
RESULTS
A total of 66 citations met the inclusion criteria. An increase in publication trend occurred in the years 1990, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2008, and 2012. For the remaining years, the publication trend was either steady or declining. The trend shows that the number of publications reached its highest peak in 2012 (n = 9). Medical Decision Making was the dominant with the highest number published papers (n = 7). The majority of the studies were conducted in the US (n = 29). Medical Decision Making journal published the highest number of articles (n = 7). Analytic Hierarchy Process (n = 33) was the most used MCDA technique. Cancer was the most researched disease topic (n = 12). The most covered area of application was diagnosis and treatment (n = 26).
CONCLUSION
The review shows that MCDA has been applied to a broad range of areas in the health care, with the use of a variety of methodological approaches. Further research is needed to develop practice guidelines for the appropriate application and reporting of MCDA methods.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Delivery of Health Care; Humans
PubMed: 25327341
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12287