-
Health Expectations : An International... Jun 2023In cancer care, the promotion and implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and consensus statements may have potential differences... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In cancer care, the promotion and implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and consensus statements may have potential differences by gender.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically analyse recommendations concerning shared decision-making in CPGs and consensus statements for the most frequent cancers exclusively among males (prostate) and females (endometrial).
SEARCH STRATEGY
We prospectively registered the protocol at PROSPERO (ID: RD42021241127). MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and online sources (8 guideline databases and 65 professional society websites) were searched independently by two reviewers, without language restrictions.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
CPGs and consensus statements about the diagnosis or treatment of prostate and endometrial cancers were included from January 2015 to August 2021.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Quality assessment deployed a previously developed 31-item tool and differences between the two cancers analysed.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 176 documents met inclusion criteria, 97 for prostate cancer (84 CPGs and 13 consensus statements) and 79 for endometrial cancer (67 CPGs and 12 consensus statements). Shared decision-making was recommended more often in prostate cancer guidelines compared to endometrial cancer (46/97 vs. 13/79, 47.4% vs. 16.5%; p < .001). Compared to prostate cancer guidelines (mean 2.14 items, standard deviation 3.45), compliance with the shared-decision-making 31-item tool was lower for endometrial cancer guidelines (mean 0.48 items, standard deviation 1.29) (p < .001). Regarding advice on the implementation of shared decision-making, it was only reported in 3 (3.8%) endometrial cancer guidelines and in 16 (16.5%) prostate cancer guidelines (p < .001).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
We observed a significant gender bias as shared decision-making was systematically more often recommended in the prostate compared to endometrial cancer guidelines. These findings should encourage new CPGs and consensus statements to consider shared decision-making for improving cancer care regardless of the gender affected.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION
The findings may inform future recommendations for professional associations and governments to update and develop high-quality clinical guidelines to consider patients' preferences and shared decision-making in cancer care.
Topics: Humans; Male; Sexism; Decision Making, Shared; Consensus; Endometrial Neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37016907
DOI: 10.1111/hex.13753 -
Palliative Medicine Apr 2024Shared decision-making is a key element of person-centred care and promoted as the favoured model in preference-sensitive decision-making. Limitations to implementation... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Shared decision-making is a key element of person-centred care and promoted as the favoured model in preference-sensitive decision-making. Limitations to implementation have been observed, and barriers and limitations, both generally and in the palliative setting, have been highlighted. More knowledge about the process of shared decision-making in palliative cancer care would assist in addressing these limitations.
AIM
To identify and synthesise qualitative data on how people with cancer, informal carers and healthcare professionals experience and perceive shared decision-making in palliative cancer care.
DESIGN
A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies. We analysed data using inductive thematic analysis.
DATA SOURCES
We searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus) from inception until June 2023, supplemented by backward searches.
RESULTS
We identified and included 23 studies, reported in 26 papers. Our analysis produced four analytical themes; (1) Overwhelming situation of 'no choice', (2) Processes vary depending on the timings and nature of the decisions involved, (3) Patient-physician dyad is central to decision-making, with surrounding support and (4) Level of involvement depends on interactions between individuals and systems.
CONCLUSION
Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care is a complex process of many decisions in a challenging, multifaceted and evolving situation where equipoise and choice are limited. Implications for practice: Implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice requires (1) clarifying conceptual confusion, (2) including members of the interprofessional team in the shared decision-making process and (3) adapting the approach to the ambiguous, existential situations which arise in palliative cancer care.
Topics: Humans; Physician-Patient Relations; Health Personnel; Caregivers; Palliative Care; Decision Making; Neoplasms
PubMed: 38481012
DOI: 10.1177/02692163241238384 -
Implementation Science : IS Jul 2021Involving patients in their healthcare using shared decision-making (SDM) is promoted through policy and research, yet its implementation in routine practice remains... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Involving patients in their healthcare using shared decision-making (SDM) is promoted through policy and research, yet its implementation in routine practice remains slow. Research into SDM has stemmed from primary and secondary care contexts, and research into the implementation of SDM in tertiary care settings has not been systematically reviewed. Furthermore, perspectives on SDM beyond those of patients and their treating clinicians may add insights into the implementation of SDM. This systematic review aimed to review literature exploring barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital settings from multiple stakeholder perspectives.
METHODS
The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed qualitative studies with the primary aim of identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital (tertiary care) settings. Studies from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health service administrators, and decision makers, government policy makers, and other stakeholders (for example researchers) were eligible for inclusion. Reported qualitative results were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify behavioural barriers and facilitators to SDM.
RESULTS
Titles and abstracts of 8724 articles were screened and 520 were reviewed in full text. Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 12) were conducted in the last four years; only four reported perspectives in addition to the patient-clinician dyad. In mapping results to the TDF, the dominant themes were Environmental Context and Resources, Social/Professional Role and Identity, Knowledge and Skills, and Beliefs about Capabilities. A wide range of barriers and facilitators across individual, organisational, and system levels were reported. Barriers specific to the hospital setting included noisy and busy ward environments and a lack of private spaces in which to conduct SDM conversations.
CONCLUSIONS
SDM implementation research in hospital settings appears to be a young field. Future research should build on studies examining perspectives beyond the clinician-patient dyad and further consider the role of organisational- and system-level factors. Organisations wishing to implement SDM in hospital settings should also consider factors specific to tertiary care settings in addition to addressing their organisational and individual SDM needs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The protocol for the review is registered on the Open Science Framework and can be found at https://osf.io/da645/ , DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DA645 .
Topics: Decision Making, Shared; Delivery of Health Care; Hospitals; Humans; Policy; Qualitative Research
PubMed: 34332601
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01142-y -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jan 2016Patient information and education, such as decision aids, are gradually moving toward online, computer-based environments. Considerable research has been conducted to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Patient information and education, such as decision aids, are gradually moving toward online, computer-based environments. Considerable research has been conducted to guide content and presentation of decision aids. However, given the relatively new shift to computer-based support, little attention has been given to how multimedia and interactivity can improve upon paper-based decision aids.
OBJECTIVE
The first objective of this review was to summarize published literature into a proposed classification of features that have been integrated into computer-based decision aids. Building on this classification, the second objective was to assess whether integration of specific features was associated with higher-quality decision making.
METHODS
Relevant studies were located by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. The review identified studies that evaluated computer-based decision aids for adults faced with preference-sensitive medical decisions and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. A thematic synthesis was conducted to develop the classification of features. Subsequently, meta-analyses were conducted based on standardized mean differences (SMD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported knowledge or decisional conflict. Further subgroup analyses compared pooled SMDs for decision aids that incorporated a specific feature to other computer-based decision aids that did not incorporate the feature, to assess whether specific features improved quality of decision making.
RESULTS
Of 3541 unique publications, 58 studies met the target criteria and were included in the thematic synthesis. The synthesis identified six features: content control, tailoring, patient narratives, explicit values clarification, feedback, and social support. A subset of 26 RCTs from the thematic synthesis was used to conduct the meta-analyses. As expected, computer-based decision aids performed better than usual care or alternative aids; however, some features performed better than others. Integration of content control improved quality of decision making (SMD 0.59 vs 0.23 for knowledge; SMD 0.39 vs 0.29 for decisional conflict). In contrast, tailoring reduced quality of decision making (SMD 0.40 vs 0.71 for knowledge; SMD 0.25 vs 0.52 for decisional conflict). Similarly, patient narratives also reduced quality of decision making (SMD 0.43 vs 0.65 for knowledge; SMD 0.17 vs 0.46 for decisional conflict). Results were varied for different types of explicit values clarification, feedback, and social support.
CONCLUSIONS
Integration of media rich or interactive features into computer-based decision aids can improve quality of preference-sensitive decision making. However, this is an emerging field with limited evidence to guide use. The systematic review and thematic synthesis identified features that have been integrated into available computer-based decision aids, in an effort to facilitate reporting of these features and to promote integration of such features into decision aids. The meta-analyses and associated subgroup analyses provide preliminary evidence to support integration of specific features into future decision aids. Further research can focus on clarifying independent contributions of specific features through experimental designs and refining the designs of features to improve effectiveness.
Topics: Adult; Computers; Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Humans; Multimedia; Online Systems; Social Support; Systems Integration
PubMed: 26813512
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4982 -
Patient Education and Counseling May 2023The purpose of this review is to explore the breadth of research conducted on SDM in the care of Black patients. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this review is to explore the breadth of research conducted on SDM in the care of Black patients.
METHODS
We conducted a scoping review following the methodological framework outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. We searched articles related to original research on SDM in the care of Black patients in October 2022 using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. Articles of all study designs (quantitative and qualitative), published or translated into English, were included. A standardized data extraction form and thematic analysis were used to facilitate data extraction by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
After removal of duplicates and screening, 30 articles were included in the final analysis. Black patients and clinician were found to not share the same understanding of SDM, and patients highly valued SDM in their care. Interventions to improve SDM yielded mixed results to enhance intent, participation in SDM, as well as health outcomes. Decision aids were the most effective form of intervention to enhance SDM. The most common barrier to SDM was patient-clinician communication, and was exacerbated by racial discordance, clinician mistrust, past experiences, and paternalistic clinician-patient dynamics.
CONCLUSIONS
SDM has the potential to improve health outcomes in Black patients when implemented contextually within Black patients' experiences and concerns. Significant barriers such as clinician mistrust exist, and the overall perception in the Black community is that SDM does not occur sufficiently. Barriers to SDM seem to be most pronounced when there is patient-clinician racial discordance. Several interventions aimed at improving SDM with Black patients have shown mixed results. Future studies should evaluate larger-scale interventions with longer follow-up. Practice implications Shared decision making (SDM) has been proposed as a useful tool for improving quality and equity in Black patients' care. However, Black patients experience lower rates of SDM compared to other populations. SDM has the potential to improve health outcomes in Black patients when implemented contextually within Black patients' experiences and concerns.
Topics: Humans; Decision Making, Shared; Decision Making; Patient Participation; Black People; Communication
PubMed: 36739706
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107646 -
PloS One 2017With rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
With rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development.
METHODS
A systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004-2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed.
RESULTS
A total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs.
CONCLUSION
There are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods.
Topics: Austria; Decision Making; Health Care Costs; Humans; Publications; Research Report
PubMed: 28806728
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183116 -
International Journal of Environmental... May 2020The aim of this systematic review conducted in the topic of youth team-sports players was three-fold: (i) Analyze the variations of decision-making processes between...
The aim of this systematic review conducted in the topic of youth team-sports players was three-fold: (i) Analyze the variations of decision-making processes between low- and high-level youth players; (ii) analyze the variations of decision-making processes between different age groups; and (iii) analyze the effects of decision-making training-based programs on youth players. Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this systematic review searched for studies on PubMed, ScienceDirect, Academic Search Complete, SPORTDiscus, and Taylor & Francis Online. The search returned 6215 papers. After screening the records against set criteria, 26 articles were fully reviewed. From the included studies, 9 were focused on comparing the decision-making process between low- and high-level players, 6 compared the decisions made by players from different age categories, and 11 analyzed the effects of decision-making-based training programs on youth players. Comparisons between high- and low-level players suggested that high-level and most talented players present a greater accuracy in the cognitive and executive answers to the game as well as being more adjustable to more complex situations. Considering the comparisons between age groups, a tendency of older players to execute more accurate decisions in the game and to have better tactical knowledge and behavior was observed. Finally, the effects of decision-making training programs suggest a beneficial effect employing practical scenarios (mainly based on small-sided and conditioned games), primarily improving passing decisions and execution. However, the benefits of interventions using videos are not clear.
Topics: Adolescent; Athletic Performance; Child; Decision Making; Humans; Youth Sports
PubMed: 32471126
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17113803 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Jul 2015Serious illness impairs function and threatens survival. Patients facing serious illness value shared decision making, yet few decision aids address the needs of this... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Serious illness impairs function and threatens survival. Patients facing serious illness value shared decision making, yet few decision aids address the needs of this population.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of evidence about decision aids and other exportable tools that promote shared decision making in serious illness, thereby (1) identifying tools relevant to the treatment decisions of seriously ill patients and their caregivers, (2) evaluating the quality of evidence for these tools, and (3) summarizing their effect on outcomes and accessibility for clinicians.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and PsychInfo from January 1, 1995, through October 31, 2014, and identified additional studies from reference lists and other systematic reviews. Clinical trials with random or nonrandom controls were included if they tested print, video, or web-based tools for advance care planning (ACP) or decision aids for serious illness. We extracted data on the study population, design, results, and risk for bias using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Each tool was evaluated for its effect on patient outcomes and accessibility.
FINDINGS
Seventeen randomized clinical trials tested decision tools in serious illness. Nearly all the trials were of moderate or high quality and showed that decision tools improve patient knowledge and awareness of treatment choices. The available tools address ACP, palliative care and goals of care communication, feeding options in dementia, lung transplant in cystic fibrosis, and truth telling in terminal cancer. Five randomized clinical trials provided further evidence that decision tools improve ACP documentation, clinical decisions, and treatment received.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Clinicians can access and use evidence-based tools to engage seriously ill patients in shared decision making. This field of research is in an early stage; future research is needed to develop novel decision aids for other serious diagnoses and key decisions. Health care delivery organizations should prioritize the use of currently available tools that are evidence based and effective.
Topics: Catastrophic Illness; Critical Illness; Decision Making; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25985438
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.1679 -
The British Journal of Surgery Dec 2018Multiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best...
BACKGROUND
Multiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consultations, and the metrics used to measure SDM and SDM-related outcomes.
METHODS
This was a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials that measured SDM during consultations in which surgery was a treatment option. Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two investigators independently.
RESULTS
Thirty-two articles were included. SDM was measured using nine different metrics. Thirty-six per cent of 13 176 patients and surgeons perceived their consultation as SDM, as opposed to patient- or surgeon-driven. Surgeons more often perceived the decision-making process as SDM than patients (43·6 versus 29·3 per cent respectively). SDM levels scored objectively using the OPTION and Decision Analysis System for Oncology instruments ranged from 7 to 39 per cent. Subjective SDM levels as perceived by surgeons and patients ranged from 54 to 93 per cent. Patients experienced a higher level of SDM during consultations than surgeons (93 versus 84 per cent). Twenty-five different SDM-related outcomes were reported.
CONCLUSION
At present, SDM in surgery is still in its infancy, although surgeons and patients both think of it favourably. Future studies should evaluate the effect of new interventions to improve SDM during surgical consultations, and its assessment using available standardized and validated metrics.
Topics: Attitude of Health Personnel; Clinical Trials as Topic; Decision Making; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Observer Variation; Patient Participation; Physician-Patient Relations; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 30357815
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11009 -
Patient Education and Counseling Jan 2023To identify decision characteristics for which SDM authors deem SDM appropriate or not, and what arguments are used. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify decision characteristics for which SDM authors deem SDM appropriate or not, and what arguments are used.
METHODS
We applied two search strategies: we included SDM models from an earlier review (strategy 1) and conducted a new search in eight databases to include papers other than describing an SDM model, such as original research, opinion papers and reviews (strategy 2).
RESULTS
From the 92 included papers, we identified 18 decision characteristics for which authors deemed SDM appropriate, including preference-sensitive, equipoise and decisions where patient commitment is needed in implementing the decision. SDM authors indicated limits to SDM, especially when there are immediate life-saving measures needed. We identified four decision characteristics on which authors of different papers disagreed on whether or not SDM is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this review show the broad range of decision characteristics for which authors deem SDM appropriate, the ambiguity of some, and potential limits of SDM.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS
The findings can stimulate clinicians to (re)consider pursuing SDM in situations in which they did not before. Additionally, it can inform SDM campaigns and educational programs as it shows for which decision situations SDM might be more or less challenging to practice.
Topics: Humans; Decision Making, Shared; Patient Participation; Decision Making; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 36220675
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.09.015