-
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Apr 2019The aim of this systematic review was to identify prospective studies that used a criteria-based return to sport (RTS) decision-making process for patients with lateral...
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to identify prospective studies that used a criteria-based return to sport (RTS) decision-making process for patients with lateral ankle sprain (LAS) injury.
DESIGN
Systematic review and narrative synthesis.
DATA SOURCES
The PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus (EBSCO), ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases were searched to 23 November 2018.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Studies were included if they prospectively applied a criteria-based RTS decision-making process for patients with LAS injury, but were excluded if they merely gathered outcome measures at the RTS time point. Studies were also excluded if patients were recovering from ankle fracture, high ankle sprain, medial ankle sprain, chronic ankle instability or complex ankle injury.
RESULTS
No studies were identified that used a criteria-based RTS decision-making process for patients with LAS injury. We were unable to conduct a quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis, therefore we provide a narrative synthesis of relevant questionnaires, as well as clinical and functional assessments commonly used in studies retrieved in the search.
CONCLUSION
There are currently no published evidence-based criteria to inform RTS decisions for patients with an LAS injury. Based on our narrative synthesis, we propose a number of variables that could be used to develop a criteria-based RTS decision paradigm. Future research should aim to reach consensus on these variables and apply them to actual RTS decisions within prospective study designs. Furthermore, we suggest that complex systems theory and the RTS continuum could be used to inform the development of an RTS decision-making paradigm for athletes with LAS injury.
Topics: Ankle Injuries; Decision Making; Evidence-Based Medicine; Exercise Test; Humans; Joint Instability; Return to Sport; Sprains and Strains; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 30747379
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-019-01071-3 -
BMJ Open Dec 2019To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is...
OBJECTIVES
To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Peer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM.
INFORMATION SOURCES
Academic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019.
RESULTS
Forty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall was the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were: ), ), ), ), and (53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time, and are the two components which are present in most models in any time period. stood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time.
CONCLUSIONS
This review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration CRD42015019740.
Topics: Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Making; Humans; Models, Theoretical; Patient Preference
PubMed: 31852700
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Dec 2021Impaired decision-making (DM) is well-known in suicidal behavior (SB). We aimed to review the evidence on DM and its mediating factors in SB and perform a meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Impaired decision-making (DM) is well-known in suicidal behavior (SB). We aimed to review the evidence on DM and its mediating factors in SB and perform a meta-analysis on DM assessed using the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). We conducted a search on databases of papers published on DM and SB up to 2020: 46 studies were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. For meta-analysis, we compared DM performance between suicide attempters (SAs) and patients (PCs) or healthy controls (HCs). The systematic review showed that SAs have greater difficulties in all DM domains. The meta-analysis found worse IGT performance among SAs in comparison with PCs and HCs. A meta-regression did not find differences for age, gender, psychiatric disorder, and clinical status. Our findings indicate that SAs exhibited deficits in DM under conditions of risk though not ambiguity. Worse DM was independent of age, gender, psychiatric disorder, and suggested that DM impairment could be considered a cognitive trait of suicidal vulnerability, a risk factor and an attribute of SAs.
Topics: Decision Making; Gambling; Humans; Neuropsychological Tests; Suicidal Ideation; Suicide, Attempted
PubMed: 34619171
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.10.005 -
Medicine Aug 2020Shared decision making (SDM) is a process within the physician-patient relationship applicable to any clinical action, whether diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Shared decision making (SDM) is a process within the physician-patient relationship applicable to any clinical action, whether diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive in nature. It has been defined as a process of mutual respect and participation between the doctor and the patient. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of decision aids (DA) in primary care based on changes in adherence to treatments, knowledge, and awareness of the disease, conflict with decisions, and patients' and health professionals' satisfaction with the intervention.
METHODS
A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials as study design; use of SDM with DA as an intervention; primary care as clinical context; written in English, Spanish, and Portuguese; and published between January 2007 and January 2019. The risk of bias of the included studies in this review was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.
RESULTS
Twenty four studies were selected out of the 201 references initially identified. With the use of DA, the use of antibiotics was reduced in cases of acute respiratory infection and decisional conflict was decreased when dealing with the treatment choice for atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis. The rate of determination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the prostate cancer screening decreased and colorectal cancer screening increased. Both professionals and patients increased their knowledge about depression, type 2 diabetes, and the perception of risk of acute myocardial infarction at 10 years without statins and with statins. The satisfaction was greater with the use of DA in choosing the treatment for depression, in cardiovascular risk management, in the treatment of low back pain, and in the use of statin therapy in diabetes. Blinding of outcomes assessment was the most common bias.
CONCLUSIONS
DA used in primary care are effective to reduce decisional conflict and improve knowledge on the disease and treatment options, awareness of risk, and satisfaction with the decisions made. More studies are needed to assess the impact of shared decision making in primary care.
Topics: Decision Making, Shared; Decision Support Techniques; Humans; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 32769870
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021389 -
Clinical Psychology Review Mar 2023Emotion-related impulsivity, the trait-like tendency toward regrettable behavior during states of high emotion, is a robust predictor of internalizing and externalizing... (Review)
Review
Emotion-related impulsivity, the trait-like tendency toward regrettable behavior during states of high emotion, is a robust predictor of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Despite substantial evidence that emotion-related impulsivity is important transdiagnostically, relatively little is known about its cognitive correlates. This systematic review and meta-regression investigates one such candidate, risky decision-making. We analyzed 195 effect sizes from 51 studies of 14,957 total participants, including 105 newly calculated effect sizes that were not reported in the original publications. The meta-regression demonstrated evidence for a small, positive relationship of emotion-related impulsivity with behavioral indices of risky decision-making (ß = 0.086). Effects generalized across sample age, gender, Positive versus Negative Urgency, and clinical versus nonclinical samples. The average effect size varied by task type, with stronger effects for the Iowa Gambling Task and Delay Discounting Task. Experimental arousal manipulation was nearly a significant moderator, with stress and pharmacological manipulations yielding significant effect sizes. Analyses indicated that publication bias did not skew the current findings. Notwithstanding limitations, the data suggest that risky decision-making is a cognitive domain that relates to emotion-related impulsivity. We conclude with recommendations regarding the specific types of tasks and arousal inductions that will best capture emotion-related impulsivity in future experimental research.
Topics: Humans; Impulsive Behavior; Gambling; Cognitive Dysfunction; Emotions; Decision Making
PubMed: 36512906
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102232 -
Resuscitation Nov 2019During resuscitation decisions are made frequently and based on limited information in a stressful environment.
BACKGROUND
During resuscitation decisions are made frequently and based on limited information in a stressful environment.
AIM
This systematic review aimed to identify human factors affecting decision-making in challenging or stressful situations in resuscitation. The secondary aim was to identify methods of improving decision-making performance under stress.
METHODS
The databases PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from their commencement to the 13th of April 2019. MeSH terms and key words were combined (Stress* OR "human factor") AND Decision. Articles were included if they involved decision makers in medicine where decisions were made under challenging circumstances, with a comparator group and an outcome measure relating to change in decision-making performance.
RESULTS
22,368 records in total were initially identified, from which 82 full text studies were reviewed and 16 finally included. The included studies ranged from 1995 to 2018 and included a total of 570 participants. The studies were conducted in several different countries and settings, with participants of varying experience and backgrounds. Of the 16 studies, 5 were randomised controlled trials, 3 of which were deemed to have a high risk of bias. The stressors identified were (i) illness severity (ii) socio-evaluative, (iii) noise, (iv) fatigue. The mitigators identified were (i) cognitive aids including checklists, (ii) stress management training and (iii) meditation.
CONCLUSIONS
Human factors contributing to decision-making during resuscitation are identified and can be mitigated by tailored stress training and cognitive aids. Understanding these factors may have implications for clinician education and the development of decision-support tools.
Topics: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Humans; Injury Severity Score; Severity of Illness Index; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 31562904
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.09.023 -
Ethical Decision Making in Disaster and Emergency Management: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Oct 2023Ethical decision making in disaster and emergency management requires more than good intentions; it also asks for careful consideration and an explicit, systematic... (Review)
Review
Ethical decision making in disaster and emergency management requires more than good intentions; it also asks for careful consideration and an explicit, systematic approach. The decisions made by leaders and the effects they have in a disaster must carry the confidence of the community to which they serve. Such decisions are critical in settings where resources are scarce; when decisions are perceived as unjust, the consequences may erode public trust, result in moral injury to staff, and cause community division. To understand how decisions in these settings are informed by ethics, a systematic literature review was conducted to determine what ethical guidance informs decision making in disaster and emergency management. This study found evidence of ethical guidance to inform decision making in disaster management in the humanitarian system, based on humanitarian principles. Evidence of the application of an ethical framework to guide or reference decision making was varied or absent in other emergency management agencies or systems. Development and validation of ethical frameworks to support decision making in disaster management practice is recommended.
Topics: Humans; Disasters; Decision Making
PubMed: 37675490
DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X23006325 -
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Dec 2021Suicide and suicidal behaviors represent a leading cause of morbidity and mortality during adolescence. While several lines of evidence suggest that suicidal behaviors... (Review)
Review
Suicide and suicidal behaviors represent a leading cause of morbidity and mortality during adolescence. While several lines of evidence suggest that suicidal behaviors are associated with risky decisions and deficient cognitive control in laboratory tasks in adults, comparatively less is known about adolescents. Here, we systematically reviewed the literature on the association between these neurocognitive variables and adolescent suicidal behaviors. The online search strategy identified 17 neurocognitive studies examining either cognitive control or decision-making processes in adolescents with past suicidal behaviors. Several studies have reported that adolescents with a history of suicidal behaviors present neuropsychological differences in the cognitive control (using Go/NoGo, suicide Stroop Test, continuous performance test, suicide/death Implicit Association Test), and decision-making (Iowa Gambling Task, Cambridge Gambling Task, cost computation, delay discounting, loss aversion tasks) domains. Due to a lack of replication or conflicting findings, our systematic review suggests that no firm conclusion can be drawn as to whether altered decision-making or poor cognitive control contribute to adolescent suicidal behaviors. However, these results collectively suggest that further research is warranted. Limitations included scarcity of longitudinal studies and a lack of homogeneity in study designs, which precluded quantitative analysis. We propose remediating ways to continue neuropsychological investigations of suicide risk in adolescence, which could lead to the identification of novel therapeutic targets and predictive markers, enabling early intervention in suicidal youth.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Cognition; Decision Making; Gambling; Humans; Suicidal Ideation; Suicide, Attempted
PubMed: 32388626
DOI: 10.1007/s00787-020-01550-3 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Mar 2016Shared decision making (SDM), an integrative patient-provider communication process emphasizing discussion of scientific evidence and patient/family values, may improve... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Shared decision making (SDM), an integrative patient-provider communication process emphasizing discussion of scientific evidence and patient/family values, may improve quality care delivery, promote evidence-based practice, and reduce overuse of surgical care. Little is known, however, regarding SDM in elective surgical practice. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize findings of studies evaluating use and outcomes of SDM in elective surgery.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS electronic databases.
REVIEW METHODS
We searched for English-language studies (January 1, 1990, to August 9, 2015) evaluating use of SDM in elective surgical care where choice for surgery could be ascertained. Identified studies were independently screened by 2 reviewers in stages of title/abstract and full-text review. We abstracted data related to population, study design, clinical dilemma, use of SDM, outcomes, treatment choice, and bias.
RESULTS
Of 10,929 identified articles, 24 met inclusion criteria. The most common area studied was spine (7 of 24), followed by joint (5 of 24) and gynecologic surgery (4 of 24). Twenty studies used decision aids or support tools, including modalities that were multimedia/video (13 of 20), written (3 of 20), or personal coaching (4 of 20). Effect of SDM on preference for surgery was mixed across studies, showing a decrease in surgery (9 of 24), no difference (8 of 24), or an increase (1 of 24). SDM tended to improve decision quality (3 of 3) as well as knowledge or preparation (4 of 6) while decreasing decision conflict (4 of 6).
CONCLUSION
SDM reduces decision conflict and improves decision quality for patients making choices about elective surgery. While net findings show that SDM may influence patients to choose surgery less often, the impact of SDM on surgical utilization cannot be clearly ascertained.
Topics: Choice Behavior; Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Elective Surgical Procedures; Humans
PubMed: 26645531
DOI: 10.1177/0194599815620558 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Jan 2023A cancer diagnosis can impact patients' and caregivers' lives, posing different challenging situations. In particular, breast cancer and prostate cancer are two types of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A cancer diagnosis can impact patients' and caregivers' lives, posing different challenging situations. In particular, breast cancer and prostate cancer are two types of cancer involving families and especially spouses in challenges linked with the diagnosis and treatment process. Caregivers are usually involved in the treatment decision-making (TDM) process concerning patients' clinical pathway, cancer treatment, and ongoing therapies. To date, no contributions provide an exhaustive overview of the role of caregivers in cancer care and their involvement in the TDM process related to the therapies.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of caregiver and patients experiences and perceptions of caregiver involvement in cancer TDM. Articles were searched on Public/Publisher MEDLINE (PubMed), Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline), and American Psychological Association APA PsycINFO.
RESULTS
17 studies were included, 10 on prostate cancer and 7 on breast cancer. According to the reviewed studies, patients and caregivers experienced the cancer diagnosis with a sense of unity. Most patients preferred to have an active or collaborative role with caregivers in TDM, feeling it was important to consult or share the decision made with their caregivers. Caregivers preferred to collaborate with patients or let patients decide by themselves after considering their opinions. Caregiver involvement could have a positive influence on the patient's medical decisions, even if cancer diagnosis and treatments overwhelmed patients and caregivers.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings highlight the importance of using a perspective that focuses on the relationship between a patient and caregivers when they receive a cancer diagnosis and have to make a treatment decision. Targeting caregiver-patient dyads, rather than individuals, is important since a supported relationship could have a protective effect on psychological distress, quality of life (QOL), and relationship satisfaction. Moreover, dyads may benefit from interventions that focus on the needs of both the patient and caregiver.
Topics: Male; Humans; Quality of Life; Decision Making, Shared; Prostatic Neoplasms; Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 36661710
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30010061