-
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology... Dec 2017The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) developed guidance on conducting systematic reviews during the development of chemical-specific toxicity factors.... (Review)
Review
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) developed guidance on conducting systematic reviews during the development of chemical-specific toxicity factors. Using elements from publicly available frameworks, the TCEQ systematic review process was developed in order to supplement the existing TCEQ Guidelines for developing toxicity factors (TCEQ Regulatory Guidance 442). The TCEQ systematic review process includes six steps: 1) Problem Formulation; 2) Systematic Literature Review and Study Selection; 3) Data Extraction; 4) Study Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment; 5) Evidence Integration and Endpoint Determination; and 6) Confidence Rating. This document provides guidance on conducting a systematic literature review and integrating evidence from different data streams when developing chemical-specific reference values (ReVs) and unit risk factors (URFs). However, this process can also be modified or expanded to address other questions that would benefit from systematic review practices. The systematic review and evidence integration framework can improve regulatory decision-making processes, increase transparency, minimize bias, improve consistency between different risk assessments, and further improve confidence in toxicity factor development.
Topics: Animals; Bias; Decision Making; Humans; Research Design; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Texas
PubMed: 29080853
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.10.008 -
Schizophrenia Bulletin May 2016We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the magnitude and specificity of the "jumping to conclusions" (JTC) bias in psychosis and delusions. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the magnitude and specificity of the "jumping to conclusions" (JTC) bias in psychosis and delusions. We examined the extent to which people with psychosis, and people with delusions specifically, required less information before making decisions. We examined (1) the average amount of information required to make a decision and (2) numbers who demonstrated an extreme JTC bias, as assessed by the "beads task." We compared people with psychosis to people with and without nonpsychotic mental health problems, and people with psychosis with and without delusions. We examined whether reduced data-gathering was associated with increased delusion severity. We identified 55 relevant studies, and acquired previously unpublished data from 16 authors. People with psychosis required significantly less information to make decisions than healthy individuals (k= 33,N= 1935,g= -0.53, 95% CI -0.69, -0.36) and those with nonpsychotic mental health problems (k= 13,N= 667,g= -0.58, 95% CI -0.80, -0.35). The odds of extreme responding in psychosis were between 4 and 6 times higher than the odds of extreme responding by healthy participants and participants with nonpsychotic mental health problems. The JTC bias was linked to a greater probability of delusion occurrence in psychosis (k= 14,N= 770, OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.12, 2.05). There was a trend-level inverse association between data-gathering and delusion severity (k= 18;N= 794;r= -.09, 95% CI -0.21, 0.03). Hence, nonaffective psychosis is characterized by a hasty decision-making style, which is linked to an increased probability of delusions.
Topics: Decision Making; Delusions; Humans; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 26519952
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbv150 -
Psycho-oncology Oct 2021Patient involvement in decision making is conditional for personalised treatment decisions. We aim to provide an up-to-date overview of patients' preferred and perceived... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Patient involvement in decision making is conditional for personalised treatment decisions. We aim to provide an up-to-date overview of patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement in decision making for cancer treatment.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL for articles published between January 2009 and January 2020. Search terms were 'decision making', 'patient participation', 'oncology', 'perception' and 'treatment'. Inclusion criteria were: written in English, peer-reviewed, reporting patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement, including adult cancer patients and concerning decision making for cancer treatment. The percentages of patients preferring and perceiving an active, shared or passive decision role and the (dis)concordance are presented. Quality assessment was performed with a modified version of the New-Castle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
31 studies were included. The median percentage of patients preferring an active, shared or passive role in decision making was respectively 25%, 46%, and 27%. The median percentage of patients perceiving an active, shared or passive role was respectively 27%, 39%, and 34%. The median concordance in preferred and perceived role of all studies was 70%. Disconcordance was highest for a shared role; 42%.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients' preferences for involvement in cancer treatment decision vary widely. A significant number of patients perceived a decisional role other than preferred. Improvements in patient involvement have been observed in the last decade. However, there is still room for improvement and physicians should explore patients' preferences for involvement in decision making in order to truly deliver personalised cancer care.
Topics: Adult; Decision Making; Humans; Neoplasms; Patient Participation; Patient Preference; Physician-Patient Relations
PubMed: 34146446
DOI: 10.1002/pon.5750 -
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision... Apr 2016Decision aids have been overall successful in improving the quality of health decision making. However, it is unclear whether the impact of the results of using decision... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Decision aids have been overall successful in improving the quality of health decision making. However, it is unclear whether the impact of the results of using decision aids also apply to older people (aged 65+). We sought to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids as compared to usual care or alternative intervention(s) for older adults facing treatment, screening or care decisions.
METHODS
A systematic search of (1) a Cochrane review of decision aids and (2) MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane library central registry of studies and Cinahl. We included published RCTs/CCTs of interventions designed to improve shared decision making (SDM) by older adults (aged 65+) and RCTs/CCTs that analysed the effect of the intervention in a subgroup with a mean age of 65+. Based on the International Patient Decision aid Standards (IPDAS), the primary outcomes were attributes of the decision and the decision process. Other behavioral, health, and health system effects were considered as secondary outcomes. If data could be pooled, a meta-analysis was conducted. Data for which meta-analysis was not possible were synthesized qualitatively.
RESULTS
The search strategy yielded 11,034 references. After abstract and full text screening, 22 papers were included. Decision aids performed better than control resp. usual care interventions by increasing knowledge and accurate risk perception in older people (decision attributes). With regard to decision process attributes, decision aids resulted in lower decisional conflict and more patient participation.
CONCLUSIONS
This review shows promising results on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults. Decision aids improve older adults' knowledge, increase their risk perception, decrease decisional conflict and seem to enhance participation in SDM. It must however be noted that the body of literature on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults is still in its infancy. Only one decision aid was specifically developed for older adults, and the mean age in most studies was between 65 and 70, indicating that the oldest-old were not included. Future research should expand on the design, application and evaluation of decision aids for older, more vulnerable adults.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Patient Participation
PubMed: 27098100
DOI: 10.1186/s12911-016-0281-8 -
The Patient Jan 2022Regulators have called for greater emphasis on the role of the patient voice to inform medical product development and decision making, and expert guidelines and reports...
BACKGROUND
Regulators have called for greater emphasis on the role of the patient voice to inform medical product development and decision making, and expert guidelines and reports for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) both explicitly recommend the consideration of patient preferences in the management of these diseases. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to quantify stakeholders' treatment preferences and estimate the trade-offs they are willing to make between outcomes such as treatment benefits and risks.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic literature review is to provide an up-to-date and critical review of DCEs published in asthma and COPD; specifically, we aim to evaluate the subject of preference studies conducted in asthma and COPD, what attributes have been included, stakeholders' preferences, and the consistency in reporting of instrument development, testing and reporting of results.
METHODS
A systematic review of published DCEs on asthma and COPD treatments was conducted using Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies were included if they included a DCE conducted in a relevant population (e.g. patients with asthma or COPD or their caregivers, asthma or COPD-treating clinicians, or the general population), and reported quantitative outcomes on participants' preferences. Study characteristics were summarised descriptively, and descriptive analyses of attribute categories, consistency in reporting on key criteria, and stakeholder preferences were undertaken.
RESULTS
A total of 33 eligible studies were identified, including 28 unique DCEs. The majority (n = 20; 71%) of studies were conducted in a patient sample. Studies focused on inhaler treatments, and included attributes in five key categories: symptoms and treatment benefits (n = 23; 82%), treatment convenience (n = 19; 68%), treatment cost (n = 17; 61%), treatment risks (n = 13; 46%), and other (n = 10; 36%). Symptoms and treatment benefits were the attributes most frequently ranked as important to patients (n = 26, 72%), followed by treatment risks (n = 7, 39%). Several studies (n = 9, 32%) did not qualitatively pre-test their DCE, and a majority did not report the uncertainty in estimated outcomes (n = 18; 64%).
CONCLUSIONS
DCEs in asthma and COPD have focused on treatment benefits and convenience, with less evidence generated on participants' risk tolerance. Quality criteria and reporting standards are needed to promote study quality and ensure consistency in reporting between studies.
Topics: Asthma; Choice Behavior; Humans; Patient Preference; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 34250574
DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00536-w -
Health Information Management : Journal... May 2023Patient involvement in decision-making plays a prominent role in improving the quality of healthcare. Despite this, shared decision-making is not routinely implemented.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patient involvement in decision-making plays a prominent role in improving the quality of healthcare. Despite this, shared decision-making is not routinely implemented. However, electronic assessment tools that capture patients' history, symptoms, opinions and values prior to their medical appointment are used by healthcare professionals during patient consultations to facilitate shared decision-making.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of electronic assessment tools to improve the shared decision-making process.
METHOD
A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Published literature was searched on MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to identify potentially relevant studies. Data were extracted and analysed narratively.
RESULTS
Seventeen articles, representing 4004 participants, were included in this review. The main findings were significant improvement in patient-provider communication and provider management of patient condition in the intervention group compared to the control group. In contrast, patient-provider satisfaction and time efficiency were assessed by relatively few included studies, and the effects of these outcomes were inconclusive.
CONCLUSION
This review found that communication and healthcare professional's management of a patient's condition improves because of the use of electronic questionnaires. This is encouraging because the process of shared decision-making is reliant on high-quality communication between healthcare professionals and patients.
IMPLICATIONS
We found that this intervention is especially important for people with chronic diseases, as they need to establish a long-term relationship with their healthcare provider and agree to a treatment plan that aligns with their values. More rigorous research with validated instruments is required.
Topics: Humans; Health Personnel; Patient Participation; Decision Making, Shared
PubMed: 33016126
DOI: 10.1177/1833358320954385 -
Neuropsychology Review Jun 2019Decision-making has many different definitions and is measured in varied ways using neuropsychological tasks. Offenders with mental disorder habitually make... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Decision-making has many different definitions and is measured in varied ways using neuropsychological tasks. Offenders with mental disorder habitually make disadvantageous decisions, but no study has systematically appraised the literature. This review aimed to clarify the field by bringing together different neuropsychological measures of decision-making, and using meta-analysis and systematic review to explore the performance of offenders with mental disorders on neuropsychological tasks of decision-making. A structured search of PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Medline, Cinahl was conducted with additional hand searching and grey literature consulted. Controlled studies of decision-making in offenders with evidence of any mental disorder, including a validated measure of decision-making were included. Total score on each relevant decision-making task was collated. Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria (n = 1820), and 10 studies (with 15 experiments) were entered into the meta-analysis (n = 841). All studies included in the meta-analysis used the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) to measure decision-making. Systematic review findings from individual studies showed violent offenders made poorer decisions than matched offender groups or controls. An omnibus meta-analysis was computed to examine performance on IGT in offenders with mental disorder compared with controls. Additionally, two sub-group meta-analyses were computed for studies involving offenders with personality disorder and psychopathy, and recidivists who were convicted of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). Individual studies not included in the meta-analysis partially supported the view that offenders make poorer decisions. However, the meta-analyses showed no significant differences in performance on IGT between the offender groups and controls. Further research is required to ascertain whether offenders with mental disorder have difficulty in making advantageous decisions. An analysis of cause and effect and various directions for future work are recommended to help understand the underpinning of these findings. Trial Registration: CRD42018088402 .
Topics: Criminals; Decision Making; Humans; Mental Disorders; Neuropsychological Tests; Risk-Taking
PubMed: 30798419
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-018-09397-x -
Medicine Jan 2024Dental decision-making represents the establishment of a common understanding between the dental professional and the recipient of the intervention, which determines...
Dental decision-making represents the establishment of a common understanding between the dental professional and the recipient of the intervention, which determines oral healthcare and dental treatment policies. Dental decision-making for persons with dementia can be challenging, and there have been no systematic reviews on this topic. Therefore, this systematic narrative review aimed to identify the current state of dental decision-making in persons with dementia. Literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Google Scholar databases. Through the process of research selection, 7 articles with a high risk of bias were included in this study. This review clarified that there is limited information on the dental decision-making processes for persons with dementia. In conclusion, although this may be difficult due to different medical and socioeconomic conditions, the dilemma between the need to establish evidence for dental decision-making and medical ethics that prioritize a patient-centered position should be discussed globally in the future.
Topics: Humans; Decision Making; Delivery of Health Care; Narration; Dementia
PubMed: 38241530
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036555 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Dec 2023Decision-making in palliative care usually involves both patients and family caregivers. However, how concordance and discordance in decision-making manifest and...
BACKGROUND
Decision-making in palliative care usually involves both patients and family caregivers. However, how concordance and discordance in decision-making manifest and function between patients and family caregivers in palliative care is not well understood.
OBJECTIVES
To identify key factors and/or processes which underpin concordance and/or discordance between patients and family caregivers with respect to their preferences for and decisions about palliative care; and ascertain how patients and family caregivers manage discordance in decision-making in palliative care.
METHODS
A systematic review and narrative synthesis of original studies published in full between January 2000 and June 2021 was conducted using the following databases: Embase; Medline; CINAHL; AMED; Web of Science; PsycINFO; PsycARTICLES; and Social Sciences Full Text.
RESULTS
After full-text review, 39 studies were included in the synthesis. Studies focused primarily on end-of-life care and on patient and family caregiver preferences for patient care. We found that discordance between patients and family caregivers in palliative care can manifest in relational conflict and can result from a lack of awareness of and communication about each other's preferences for care. Patients' advancing illness and impending death together with open dialogue about future care including advance care planning can foster consensus between patients and family caregivers.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients and family caregivers in palliative care can accommodate each other's preferences for care. Further research is needed to fully understand how patients and family caregivers move towards consensus in the context of advancing illness.
Topics: Humans; Palliative Care; Caregivers; Decision Making; Terminal Care; Hospice Care
PubMed: 35318213
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2022-003525 -
Phlebology Sep 2017Objective Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis remains a challenging problem. Various clinical prediction rules have been developed in order to improve diagnosis and... (Review)
Review
Objective Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis remains a challenging problem. Various clinical prediction rules have been developed in order to improve diagnosis and decision making in relation to deep vein thrombosis. The purpose of this review is to summarise the available clinical scores and describe their applicability and limitations. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance using the keywords: clinical score, clinical prediction rule, risk assessment, clinical probability, pretest probability, diagnostic score and medical Subject Heading terms: 'Venous Thromboembolism/diagnosis' OR 'Venous Thrombosis/diagnosis'. Both development and validation studies were eligible for inclusion. Results The search strategy returned a total of 2036 articles, of which 102 articles met a priori criteria for inclusion. Eight different diagnostic scores were identified. The development of these scores differs in respect of the population included (hospital inpatients, hospital outpatients or primary care patients), the exclusion criteria, the inclusion of distal deep vein thrombosis and the use of D-dimer. The reliability and applicability of the scores in the context of specific subgroups (inpatients, cancer patients, elderly patients and those with recurrent deep vein thrombosis) remains controversial. Conclusion Detailed knowledge of the development of the various clinical prediction scores for deep vein thrombosis is essential in understanding the power, generalisability and limitations of these clinical tools.
Topics: Decision Making; Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products; Humans; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 27885107
DOI: 10.1177/0268355516678729