-
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 -
Pain Research & Management 2021To comprehensively summarize the evidence on the preferences and values of migraine patients. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To comprehensively summarize the evidence on the preferences and values of migraine patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Sino-Med, Chongqing VIP, and Wanfang Data for studies on the preferences and values of migraine patients. A qualitative review was performed, but no quantitative synthesis.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were finally included, involving a total of 8701 participants. Patients expected a cure, to be symptom-free, a reduction in frequency of headaches, a reduction in severity of headaches, and an improved quality of life from their preventive treatment. Patients expected rapid pain relief, complete pain relief, return to normal activities, no recurrence, and no adverse events from their acute symptomatic treatment.
CONCLUSION
Efficacy is the primary consideration in the treatment of migraine. Specifically, the most important embodiment of patient preferences and values is the reduced frequency of attacks with preventive treatment as well as prompt analgesia with acute symptomatic treatment.
Topics: China; Decision Making; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Patient Preference; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34567299
DOI: 10.1155/2021/9919773 -
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision... Dec 2023The implementation of precision medicine is likely to have a huge impact on clinical cancer care, while the doctor-patient relationship is a crucial aspect of cancer...
BACKGROUND
The implementation of precision medicine is likely to have a huge impact on clinical cancer care, while the doctor-patient relationship is a crucial aspect of cancer care that needs to be preserved. This systematic review aimed to map out perceptions and concerns regarding how the implementation of precision medicine will impact the doctor-patient relationship in cancer care so that threats against the doctor-patient relationship can be addressed.
METHODS
Electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Social Science Premium Collection) were searched for articles published from January 2010 to December 2021, including qualitative, quantitative, and theoretical methods. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Findings were summarized and explained using narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
Four themes were generated from the included articles (n = 35). Providing information addresses issues of information transmission and needs, and of complex concepts such as genetics and uncertainty. Making decisions in a trustful relationship addresses opacity issues, the role of trust, and and physicians' attitude towards the role of precision medicine tools in decision-making. Managing negative reactions of non-eligible patients addresses patients' unmet expectations of precision medicine. Conflicting roles in the blurry line between clinic and research addresses issues stemming from physicians' double role as doctors and researchers.
CONCLUSIONS
Many findings have previously been addressed in doctor-patient communication and clinical genetics. However, precision medicine adds complexity to these fields and further emphasizes the importance of clear communication on specific themes like the distinction between genomic and gene expression and patients' expectations about access, eligibility, effectiveness, and side effects of targeted therapies.
Topics: Humans; Physician-Patient Relations; Precision Medicine; Uncertainty; Physicians; Narration; Neoplasms
PubMed: 38098034
DOI: 10.1186/s12911-023-02395-x -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Feb 2021The aim of this systematic review was to explore and evaluate the efficacy of interventions to reduce the prevalence of look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) medication name... (Review)
Review
AIMS
The aim of this systematic review was to explore and evaluate the efficacy of interventions to reduce the prevalence of look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) medication name errors.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the literature, searching PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science up to December 2016, and re-ran the search in February 2020 for later results. We included studies of interventions to reduce LASA errors and included randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series. Details were registered in Prospero (ID: CRD42016048198).
RESULTS
We identified six studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. All were conducted in laboratories. Given the diversity in the included studies, we did not conduct a meta-analysis and instead report the findings narratively. The only intervention explored in RCTs was capitalization of selected letters ("Tall Man"), for which we found limited efficacy and no consensus.
CONCLUSIONS
Tall Man lettering is a marginally effective intervention to reduce LASA errors, with a number of caveats. We suggest that Tall Man gives rise to a "quasi-placebo effect", whereby a user derives more benefit from Tall Man lettering if they are aware of its purpose.
Topics: Consensus; Humans; Interrupted Time Series Analysis; Male; Medication Errors
PubMed: 33197079
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14644 -
The Spine Journal : Official Journal of... Dec 2023Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a global health problem with a heavy economic burden. Surgery is considered as the cornerstone of SCI treatment. Although various... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a global health problem with a heavy economic burden. Surgery is considered as the cornerstone of SCI treatment. Although various organizations have formulated different guidelines on surgical treatment for SCI, the methodological quality of these guidelines has still not been critically appraised.
PURPOSE
We aim to systematically review and appraise the current guidelines on surgical treatments of SCI and summarize the related recommendations with the quality evaluation of supporting evidence.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
Medline, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and online guideline databases were searched from January 2000 to January 2022. The most updated and recent guidelines containing evidence-based or consensus-based recommendations and established by authoritative associations were included. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition instrument containing 6 domains (eg, applicability) was used to appraise the included guidelines. An evidence-grading scale (ie, level of evidence, LOE) was utilized to evaluate the quality of supporting evidence. The supporting evidence was categorized as A (the best quality), B, C, and D (the worst quality).
RESULTS
Ten guidelines from 2008 to 2020 were included, however, all of them acquired the lowest scores in the domain of applicability among all the six domains. Fourteen recommendations (eight evidence-based recommendations and six consensus-based recommendations) were totally involved. The SCI types of the population and timing of surgery were studied. Regarding the SCI types of the population, eight guidelines (8/10, 80%), two guidelines (2/10, 20%), and three guidelines (3/10, 30%) recommended surgical treatment for patients with SCI without further clarification of characteristics, incomplete SCI, and traumatic central cord syndrome (TCCS), respectively. Besides, one guideline (1/10, 10%) recommended against surgery for patients with SCI without radiographic abnormality. Regarding the timing of surgery, there were eight guidelines (8/10, 80%), two guidelines (2/10, 20%), and two guidelines (2/10, 20%) with recommendations for patients with SCI without further clarification of characteristics, incomplete SCI, and TCCS, respectively. For patients with SCI without further clarification of characteristics, all eight guidelines (8/8, 100%) recommended for early surgery and five guidelines (5/8, 62.5%) recommended for the specific timing, which ranged from within 8 hours to within 48 hours. For patients with incomplete SCI, two guidelines (2/2, 100%) recommended for early surgery, without specific time thresholds. For patients with TCCS, one guideline (1/2, 50%) recommended for surgery within 24 hours, and another guideline (1/2, 50%) simply recommended for early surgery. The LOE was B in eight recommendations, C in three recommendations, and D in three recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
We remind the reader that even the highest quality guidelines often have significant flaws (eg, poor applicability), and some of the conclusions are based on consensus recommendations which is certainly less than ideal. With these caveats, we found most included guidelines (8/10, 80%) recommended early surgical treatment for patients after SCI, which was consistent between evidence-based recommendations and consensus-based recommendations. Regarding the specific timing of surgery, the recommended time threshold did vary, but it was usually within 8 to 48 hours, where the LOE was B to D.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Cord Injuries; Evidence-Based Medicine; Consensus
PubMed: 37339698
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2023.06.385 -
Health Expectations : An International... Apr 2020Existing measures to assess shared decision making (SDM) have often been developed based on an ill-defined underlying construct, and many assess physician behaviours...
BACKGROUND
Existing measures to assess shared decision making (SDM) have often been developed based on an ill-defined underlying construct, and many assess physician behaviours only or focus on a single patient-physician encounter.
OBJECTIVE
To (a) develop a patient and a physician questionnaire to measure SDM in oncology and (b) determine their content validity and comprehensibility.
METHODS
A systematic review of SDM models and an oncology-specific SDM model informed the domains of the SDM construct. We formulated items for each SDM domain. Cancer patients and physicians rated content validity in an online questionnaire. We assumed a formative measurement model and performed online field-testing in cancer patients to inform further item reduction. We tested item comprehension in cognitive interviews with cancer patients and physicians.
RESULTS
We identified 17 domains and formulated 132 items. Twelve cancer patients rated content validity at item level, and 11 physicians rated content validity at domain level. We field-tested the items among 131 cancer patients and conducted cognitive interviews with eight patients and five physicians. These phases resulted in the 15-item iSHAREpatient and 15-item iSHAREphysician questionnaires, covering 13 domains.
CONCLUSIONS
We thoroughly developed the iSHARE questionnaires. They both assess patient and physician behaviours and cover the entire SDM process rather than a single consultation.
Topics: Decision Making; Decision Making, Shared; Humans; Patient Participation; Physician-Patient Relations; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32022350
DOI: 10.1111/hex.13015 -
Health Expectations : An International... Oct 2020It is not clear whether clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are adequately promoting shared decision making (SDM). (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
It is not clear whether clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are adequately promoting shared decision making (SDM).
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the recommendations about SDM in CPGs and CSs concerning breast cancer (BC) treatment.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Following protocol registration (Prospero no.: CRD42018106643), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2010 to December 2019.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were selected whether published in a journal or in an online document.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
A 31-item SDM quality assessment tool was developed and used to extract data in duplicate.
MAIN RESULTS
There were 167 relevant CPGs (139) and CSs (28); SDM was reported in only 40% of the studies. SDM was reported more often in recent publications after 2015 (42/101 (41.6 %) vs 46/66 (69.7 %), P = .0003) but less often in medical journal publications (44/101 (43.5 %) vs 17/66 (25.7 %), P = .009). In CPGs and CSs with SDM, only 8/66 (12%) met one-fifth (6 of 31) of the quality items; only 14/66 (8%) provided clear and precise SDM recommendations.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
SDM descriptions and recommendations in CPGs and CSs concerning BC treatment need improvement. SDM was more frequently reported in CPGs and CSs in recent years, but surprisingly it was less often covered in medical journals, a feature that needs attention.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Breast Neoplasms; Consensus; Decision Making; Decision Making, Shared; Female; Humans; Language
PubMed: 32748514
DOI: 10.1111/hex.13112 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2022The study's purpose was to identify the meaning and the attributes of Korean nurses' clinical decision making. A sequential and systematic literature review with...
The study's purpose was to identify the meaning and the attributes of Korean nurses' clinical decision making. A sequential and systematic literature review with reflection according to the conceptual analysis method of Walker and Avant was used in this study. Data sources included the National Assembly Library, the National Digital Science Library, ProQuest, PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL. Finally, twenty-six articles were included in this concept analysis. The concept of Korean nurses' clinical decision making consisted of the following attributes: clinical reasoning, choosing and applying challenging alternatives, and professional assessment and resetting. Antecedents consisted of: recognizing complex and diverse patient situations with high uncertainty, the need to solve problems according to priority, prior experience in clinical decision making, and interrelationships with fellow medical staff. Consequences consisted of: providing high-quality nursing services, improving the patient's safety, and increased satisfaction with clinical decision making. Based on these results, the conceptual attributes of Korean nurses' clinical decision making had slightly different characteristics but were organically interrelated. The results of analyzing the concept of Korean nurses' clinical decision making provide a better understanding of it and contribute to expanding nursing knowledge and developing a valid and reliable measurement.
Topics: Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Making; Humans; Nurses; Republic of Korea
PubMed: 35329283
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19063596 -
BMJ Open Feb 2023Motor neuron disease (MND) is an incurable progressive neurodegenerative disease with limited treatment options. There is a pressing need for innovation in identifying... (Review)
Review
Systematic, comprehensive, evidence-based approach to identify neuroprotective interventions for motor neuron disease: using systematic reviews to inform expert consensus.
OBJECTIVES
Motor neuron disease (MND) is an incurable progressive neurodegenerative disease with limited treatment options. There is a pressing need for innovation in identifying therapies to take to clinical trial. Here, we detail a systematic and structured evidence-based approach to inform consensus decision making to select the first two drugs for evaluation in Motor Neuron Disease-Systematic Multi-arm Adaptive Randomised Trial (MND-SMART: NCT04302870), an adaptive platform trial. We aim to identify and prioritise candidate drugs which have the best available evidence for efficacy, acceptable safety profiles and are feasible for evaluation within the trial protocol.
METHODS
We conducted a two-stage systematic review to identify potential neuroprotective interventions. First, we reviewed clinical studies in MND, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis, identifying drugs described in at least one MND publication or publications in two or more other diseases. We scored and ranked drugs using a metric evaluating safety, efficacy, study size and study quality. In stage two, we reviewed efficacy of drugs in MND animal models, multicellular eukaryotic models and human induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) studies. An expert panel reviewed candidate drugs over two shortlisting rounds and a final selection round, considering the systematic review findings, late breaking evidence, mechanistic plausibility, safety, tolerability and feasibility of evaluation in MND-SMART.
RESULTS
From the clinical review, we identified 595 interventions. 66 drugs met our drug/disease logic. Of these, 22 drugs with supportive clinical and preclinical evidence were shortlisted at round 1. Seven drugs proceeded to round 2. The panel reached a consensus to evaluate memantine and trazodone as the first two arms of MND-SMART.
DISCUSSION
For future drug selection, we will incorporate automation tools, text-mining and machine learning techniques to the systematic reviews and consider data generated from other domains, including high-throughput phenotypic screening of human iPSCs.
Topics: Humans; Consensus; Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells; Motor Neuron Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36725099
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064169 -
BMC Health Services Research Feb 2023Shared decision-making (SDM) in perioperative care, is an organizational approach to instituting sharing of information and decision-making around surgery. It aims at... (Review)
Review
Patients' and healthcare professionals' perceived facilitators and barriers for shared decision-making for frail and elderly patients in perioperative care: a scoping review.
BACKGROUND
Shared decision-making (SDM) in perioperative care, is an organizational approach to instituting sharing of information and decision-making around surgery. It aims at enabling patient autonomy and patient-centered care. Frail and elderly patients suffering from multiple health conditions and increased surgical vulnerability might particularly benefit from SDM. However, little is known about the facilitators and barriers to implementing SDM in perioperative care for the specific needs of frail and elderly patients. Our objective is twofold: First, we aim at collecting, analyzing, categorizing, and communicating facilitators and barriers. Second, we aim at collecting and mapping conceptual approaches and methods employed in determining and analyzing these facilitators and barriers.
METHODS
The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed studies. We employed a taxonomy which is based on the SPIDER framework and added the items general article information, stakeholder, barriers/facilitators, category, subcategory, and setting/contextual information. This taxonomy is based on preceding reviews. The scoping review is reported under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Based on the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, we screened 984 articles, identified, and reviewed 13 original studies.
RESULTS
Within this review, two primary facilitators concerning patients' willingness to participate in SDM emerged: Patients want to be informed on their medical condition and procedures. Patients prefer sharing decisions with healthcare professionals, compared to decision-making solely by patients or decision-making solely by healthcare professionals. Communication issues and asymmetric power relationships between patients and clinical healthcare professionals are barriers to SDM. Regarding the methodological approaches, the evaluation of the conceptual approaches demonstrates that the selected articles lack employing a distinct theoretical framework. Second, the selected studies mainly used surveys and interviews, observational studies, like ethnographic or video-based studies are absent.
CONCLUSION
Diverging findings perceived by patients or clinical healthcare professionals were identified. These imply that SDM research related to elderly and frail patients should become more encompassing by employing research that incorporates theory-based qualitative analysis, and observational studies of SDM consultations for understanding practices by patients and clinical healthcare professionals. Observational studies are particularly relevant as these were not conducted.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
https://osf.io/8fjnb/.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Decision Making; Cross-Sectional Studies; Frail Elderly; Patient Participation; Multimorbidity; Perioperative Care
PubMed: 36829131
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09120-4