-
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 -
Patient Education and Counseling Jul 2024To describe the role of patients with a chronic disease, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and technology in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of clinical decision... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To describe the role of patients with a chronic disease, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and technology in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), and to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM and CDSSs interventions.
METHODS
Randomized controlled studies published between 2011 and 2021 were identified and screened independently by two reviewers, followed by data extraction and analysis. SDM elements and interactive styles were identified to shape the roles of patients, HCPs and technology.
RESULTS
Forty-three articles were identified and reported on 21 SDM-studies, 15 CDSS-studies, 2 studies containing both an SDM-tool and a CDSS, and 5 studies with other decision support components. SDM elements were mostly identified in SDM-tools and interactions styles were least common in the other decision support components.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients within the included RCTs mainly received information from SDM-tools and occasionally CDSSs when it concerns treatment strategies. HCPs provide and clarify information using SDM-tools and CDSSs. Technology provides interactions, which can support more active SDM. SDM-tools mostly showed evidence for positive effects on SDM outcomes, while CDSSs mostly demonstrated positive effects on clinical outcomes.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS
Technology-supported SDM has potential to optimize SDM when patients, HCPs and technology collaborate well together.
Topics: Humans; Decision Making, Shared; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Chronic Disease; Patient Participation; Decision Support Systems, Clinical; Decision Support Techniques; Health Personnel
PubMed: 38547638
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108267 -
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research Sep 2023Surgical resection of Morton's neuroma includes dorsal and plantar approaches. However, there is no consensus on the choice of approach in clinic. The purpose of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical resection of Morton's neuroma includes dorsal and plantar approaches. However, there is no consensus on the choice of approach in clinic. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the surgical results of dorsal and plantar approaches.
METHODS
The literatures of PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and Web of Science were searched on April 26th, 2023. A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The data were extracted after screening the literature and evaluating the quality of the methodology included in the study. The RevMan5.4 software was used to analyze and calculate the OR value and 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
A total of 7 randomized controlled trials and comparative studies were published, of which only 5 were included. There were 158 feet via plantar approach (plantar group, PG) and 189 via dorsal approach (dorsal group, DG). There was no significant difference between PG and DG in overall adverse events, sensory problems, incision infection and deep vein thrombosis (p > 0.05). In terms of scar problems, PG showed more than DG (OR, 2.90[95%CI, 1.40 to 5.98]; p = 0.004). Other outcome indicators such as visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores were difficult to be included in the comparison.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the relatively low quality and small amount of available evidence, the meta-analysis conducted produces a hypothesis that the frequency of adverse events in surgical treatment of Morton's neuroma, dorsal approach and plantar approach may be the same, but the types are different. More high-level evidence is needed to further verify this hypothesis.
Topics: Humans; Morton Neuroma; Consensus; Lower Extremity; Orthopedics; Software
PubMed: 37674248
DOI: 10.1186/s13047-023-00660-w -
The International Journal of Behavioral... Jun 2022A recent dialogue in the field of play, learn, and teach outdoors (referred to as "PLaTO" hereafter) demonstrated the need for developing harmonized and consensus-based... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A recent dialogue in the field of play, learn, and teach outdoors (referred to as "PLaTO" hereafter) demonstrated the need for developing harmonized and consensus-based terminology, taxonomy, and ontology for PLaTO. This is important as the field evolves and diversifies in its approaches, contents, and contexts over time and in different countries, cultures, and settings. Within this paper, we report the systematic and iterative processes undertaken to achieve this objective, which has built on the creation of the global PLaTO-Network (PLaTO-Net).
METHODS
This project comprised of four major methodological phases. First, a systematic scoping review was conducted to identify common terms and definitions used pertaining to PLaTO. Second, based on the results of the scoping review, a draft set of key terms, taxonomy, and ontology were developed, and shared with PLaTO members, who provided feedback via four rounds of consultation. Third, PLaTO terminology, taxonomy, and ontology were then finalized based on the feedback received from 50 international PLaTO member participants who responded to ≥ 3 rounds of the consultation survey and dialogue. Finally, efforts to share and disseminate project outcomes were made through different online platforms.
RESULTS
This paper presents the final definitions and taxonomy of 31 PLaTO terms along with the PLaTO-Net ontology model. The model incorporates other relevant concepts in recognition that all the aspects of the model are interrelated and interconnected. The final terminology, taxonomy, and ontology are intended to be applicable to, and relevant for, all people encompassing various identities (e.g., age, gender, culture, ethnicity, ability).
CONCLUSIONS
This project contributes to advancing PLaTO-based research and facilitating intersectoral and interdisciplinary collaboration, with the long-term goal of fostering and strengthening PLaTO's synergistic linkages with healthy living, environmental stewardship, climate action, and planetary health agendas. Notably, PLaTO terminology, taxonomy and ontology will continue to evolve, and PLaTO-Net is committed to advancing and periodically updating harmonized knowledge and understanding in the vast and interrelated areas of PLaTO.
Topics: Consensus; Humans; Learning; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35701784
DOI: 10.1186/s12966-022-01294-0 -
The Lancet. Global Health Feb 2023Snakebite clinical trials have often used heterogeneous outcome measures and there is an urgent need for standardisation. A globally representative group of key... (Review)
Review
Snakebite clinical trials have often used heterogeneous outcome measures and there is an urgent need for standardisation. A globally representative group of key stakeholders came together to reach consensus on a globally relevant set of core outcome measurements. Outcome domains and outcome measurement instruments were identified through searching the literature and a systematic review of snakebite clinical trials. Outcome domains were shortlisted by use of a questionnaire and consensus was reached among stakeholders and the patient group through facilitated discussions and voting. Five universal core outcome measures should be included in all future snakebite clinical trials-mortality, WHO disability assessment scale, patient-specific functional scale, acute allergic reaction by Brown criteria, and serum sickness by formal criteria. Additional syndrome-specific core outcome measures should be used depending on the biting species. This core outcome measurement set provides global standardisation, supports the priorities of patients and clinicians, enables meta-analysis, and is appropriate for use in low-income and middle-income settings.
Topics: Humans; Consensus; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Snake Bites; Surveys and Questionnaires; Treatment Outcome; Clinical Trials as Topic; Global Health
PubMed: 36669810
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00479-X -
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 -
Patient Education and Counseling Apr 2023To describe the nature of teaching Shared Decision Making (SDM) within the context of Evidence Based Practice (EBP) to support development of contemporaneous EBP... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To describe the nature of teaching Shared Decision Making (SDM) within the context of Evidence Based Practice (EBP) to support development of contemporaneous EBP education programmes for healthcare learners.
METHODS
A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance was conducted with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) used to guide reporting.
RESULTS
The narrative overview of 23 studies provides insight into the 'what' and 'how' of teaching SDM within the context of EBP education. A minority of studies explicitly and concurrently incorporated EBP and SDM in terms of how programme content was organised. Teaching strategies most often used regardless of learner cohort or setting included didactic, face-to-face lectures, together with role-play/modelling, small group workshops and video recordings. Programme evaluation outcomes predominantly focused on participant reactions to training and participant learning.
CONCLUSION
While a disconnect between EBP and SDM remains evident in healthcare programmes, increased recognition by educators to actively facilitate this interdependent relationship is emerging.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS
Intentionally structuring learning activities in a manner which demonstrates the relevance and interdependence of SDM and EBP may mitigate 'learning silos' and enhance learners' abilities to make connections required in practice.
Topics: Humans; Decision Making, Shared; Delivery of Health Care; Learning; Evidence-Based Practice; Educational Status
PubMed: 36689886
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107630 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... May 2023Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used for decision making in healthcare. However, its application in different decision-making contexts is still... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used for decision making in healthcare. However, its application in different decision-making contexts is still unclear. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive review of MCDA studies performed to inform decisions in healthcare and to summarize its application in different decision contexts.
METHODS
We updated a systematic review conducted in 2013 by searching Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar for MCDA studies in healthcare, published in English between August 2013 and November 2020. We also expanded the search by reviewing grey literature found via Trip Medical Database and Google, published between January 1990 and November 2020. A comprehensive template was developed to extract information about the decision context, criteria, methods, stakeholders involved, and sensitivity analyses conducted.
RESULTS
From the 4295 identified studies, 473 studies were eligible for full-text review after assessing titles and abstracts. Of those, 228 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. The use of MCDA continues to grow in healthcare literature, with most of the studies (49%) informing priority-setting decisions. Safety, cost, and quality of care delivery are the most frequently used criteria, although there are considerable differences across decision contexts. Almost half of the MCDA studies used the linear additive model whereas scales and the analytical hierarchy process were the most used techniques for scoring and weighting, respectively. Not all studies report on each one of the MCDA steps, consider axiomatic properties, or justify the methods used.
CONCLUSIONS
A guide on how to conduct and report MCDA that acknowledges the particularities of the different decision contexts and methods needs to be developed.
Topics: Humans; Decision Support Techniques; Delivery of Health Care; Decision Making
PubMed: 36436791
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.11.007 -
Health Expectations : An International... Aug 2022Shared decision-making (SDM) as a multicollaborative approach is vital for facilitating patient-centred care. Considering the limited clinical practice, we attempted to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Shared decision-making (SDM) as a multicollaborative approach is vital for facilitating patient-centred care. Considering the limited clinical practice, we attempted to synthesize the motivations and resistances, and investigate their mutual relationships for advancing the implementation of SDM.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed. 'Shared decision making' was searched as the mesh term through PubMed, Web of Science and EBSCO from 2000 to 2021, and the quality of literature was appraised using the QualSyst Tool. Motivations and resistances were categorized based on content analysis and the 'structure-process-outcome' model.
RESULTS
From 8319 potential citations, 105 were included, comprising 53 qualitative studies (the average quality score is 0.92) and 52 quantitative studies (the average quality score is 0.95). A total of 42 categories of factors were identified into 11 themes and further grouped into three dimensions: structure, process and outcome. The structure dimension comprised six themes (71.43%), the process dimension contained four themes (11.01%) and the outcome dimension covered only one theme. Across all categories, decision-making time and patients' decision preparedness in the process dimension were the most reported, followed by physicians' communication skills and health care environment in the structure dimension. Analysis of implementation of SDM among various types of diseases showed that more influencing factors were extracted from chronic diseases and unspecified disease decisions.
CONCLUSIONS
The major determinants for the implementation of SDM are focused on the structural dimension, which challenges the health systems of both developed and low- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, we consider it important to understand more about the interactions among the factors to take integrated measures to address the problems and to ensure the effectiveness of implementing SDM.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION
Patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders articulated their perspectives on the implementation of SDM actively, and these were adopted and analysed in this study. However, the above-mentioned individuals were not directly involved in the process of this study. Protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021259309).
Topics: Communication; Decision Making; Decision Making, Shared; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Motivation; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Patient Participation; Patient-Centered Care; Physician-Patient Relations; Professional Practice
PubMed: 35662361
DOI: 10.1111/hex.13541