-
Implementation Science : IS Jan 2019Shared decision-making (SDM) is rarely implemented in pediatric practice. Pediatric health decision-making differs from that of adult practice. Yet, little is known...
BACKGROUND
Shared decision-making (SDM) is rarely implemented in pediatric practice. Pediatric health decision-making differs from that of adult practice. Yet, little is known about the factors that influence the implementation of pediatric shared decision-making (SDM). We synthesized pediatric SDM barriers and facilitators from the perspectives of healthcare providers (HCP), parents, children, and observers (i.e., persons who evaluated the SDM process, but were not directly involved).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review guided by the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO (inception to March 2017) and included studies that reported clinical pediatric SDM barriers and/or facilitators from the perspective of HCPs, parents, children, and/or observers. We considered all or no comparison groups and included all study designs reporting original data. Content analysis was used to synthesize barriers and facilitators and categorized them according to the OMRU levels (i.e., decision, innovation, adopters, relational, and environment) and participant types (i.e., HCP, parents, children, and observers). We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to appraise study quality.
RESULTS
Of 20,008 identified citations, 79 were included. At each OMRU level, the most frequent barriers were features of the options (decision), poor quality information (innovation), parent/child emotional state (adopter), power relations (relational), and insufficient time (environment). The most frequent facilitators were low stake decisions (decision), good quality information (innovation), agreement with SDM (adopter), trust and respect (relational), and SDM tools/resources (environment). Across participant types, the most frequent barriers were insufficient time (HCPs), features of the options (parents), power imbalances (children), and HCP skill for SDM (observers). The most frequent facilitators were good quality information (HCP) and agreement with SDM (parents and children). There was no consistent facilitator category for observers. Overall, study quality was moderate with quantitative studies having the highest ratings and mixed-method studies having the lowest ratings.
CONCLUSIONS
Numerous diverse and interrelated factors influence SDM use in pediatric clinical practice. Our findings can be used to identify potential pediatric SDM barriers and facilitators, guide context-specific barrier and facilitator assessments, and inform interventions for implementing SDM in pediatric practice.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42015020527.
Topics: Adolescent; Attitude of Health Personnel; Child; Child Health Services; Child, Preschool; Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Making; Emotions; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Implementation Science; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Information Dissemination; Parents; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Patient Participation; Power, Psychological; Professional-Patient Relations; Workload
PubMed: 30658670
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0851-5 -
Medical Decision Making : An... Jan 2015Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the empirical evidence linking patient outcomes and SDM, when the decision-making process has been explicitly measured, and to identify under what measurement perspectives SDM is associated with which types of patient outcomes (affective-cognitive, behavioral, and health).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed (through December 2012) and hand search of article bibliographies.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included if they empirically 1) measured SDM in the context of a patient-clinician interaction and 2) evaluated the relationship between SDM and at least 1 patient outcome.
DATA EXTRACTION
Study results were categorized by SDM measurement perspective (patient-reported, clinician-reported, or observer-rated) and outcome type (affective-cognitive, behavioral, or health).
DATA SYNTHESIS
Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-three used patient-reported measures of SDM, 6 used observer-rated measures, and 2 used clinician-reported measures. Ninety-seven unique patient outcomes were assessed; 51% affective-cognitive, 28% behavioral, and 21% health. Only 43% of assessments (n = 42) found a significant and positive relationship between SDM and the patient outcome. This proportion varied by SDM measurement perspective and outcome category. It was found that 52% of outcomes assessed with patient-reported SDM were significant and positive, compared with 21% with observer-rated and 0% with clinician-reported SDM. Regardless of measurement perspective, SDM was most likely to be associated with affective-cognitive patient outcomes (54%), compared with 37% of behavioral and 25% of health outcomes.
LIMITATIONS
The relatively small number of studies precludes meta-analysis. Because the study inclusion and exclusion criteria required both an empirical measure of SDM and an assessment of the association between that measure and a patient outcome, most included studies were observational in design.
CONCLUSIONS
SDM, when perceived by patients as occurring, tends to result in improved affective-cognitive outcomes. Evidence is lacking for the association between empirical measures of SDM and patient behavioral and health outcomes.
Topics: Decision Making; Health Behavior; Humans; Patient Compliance; Patient Participation; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Trust
PubMed: 25351843
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14551638 -
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 -
European Review For Medical and... Apr 2019This systematic review focuses on 5 key elements that may improve the decision-making process in spondylodiscitis: the infective agent, segmental instability, abscess...
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review focuses on 5 key elements that may improve the decision-making process in spondylodiscitis: the infective agent, segmental instability, abscess development, neurological compromise and focus of infection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We included 64 studies published between May 2012 and May 2017, that reported both a description of the discitis and comparative data regarding the disease and its complications.
RESULTS
The majority of cases were caused by Staphylococcus spp (40.3%) and involved the lumbosacral region (52.3%). 27.8% of cases were associated to neurological compromise, 30.4% developed an abscess, 6.6% were associated to instability, and 54.7% underwent surgery. The abscesses mostly involved the lumbosacral region (60.4%) with paravertebral localization; 32.6% of cases involved the thoracic region, showing mostly epidural localization; a small number of cases (7%) involved the cervical region, mostly with epidural localization. 95% of paravertebral abscesses were treated percutaneously, while 85.7% of epidural cases underwent "open" surgery. Spinal cord compression mainly occurred in the cervical region (55.9%), neurological deficit was observed in over half of cases (65%), and surgery was required in most of the cases (83.9%). The majority of cases of instability involved the lumbosacral region (53.3%) and underwent surgery (87%). The focus of infection was mostly lumbosacral (61%) and almost all cases (95%) were treated surgically.
CONCLUSIONS
Spondylodiscitis is a complex and multifactorial disease, whose diagnosis and management are still challenging. Due to its potential morbidity, it is extremely important to investigate the 5 key elements discussed in this paper in order to provide an early diagnosis and initiate the most effective treatment.
Topics: Decision Making; Discitis; Humans
PubMed: 30977878
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_201904_17481 -
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 -
BMC Health Services Research Jun 2019Advance care planning (ACP) is the process of ongoing communication among patients, family and health care professionals regarding what plans for future care are...
BACKGROUND
Advance care planning (ACP) is the process of ongoing communication among patients, family and health care professionals regarding what plans for future care are preferred in the event that patients become unable to make their own decisions. Clinicians play an important role in ACP as both initiators and decision coaches. However, lack of training for clinicians has frequently been reported as the reason for low involvement in ACP discussions - hence the present review evaluates the effectiveness of ACP training programs for healthcare professionals to guide the development of novel training programs for them in the future.
METHODS
A literature search for intervention studies was conducted independently by two reviewers in July 2018. Participants included all healthcare professionals working with adult patients suffering from terminal illness. The primary outcomes were the professionals' knowledge of and attitudes towards ACP, and self-perceived competence in ACP conversations. The Effective Public Health Practice Project appraisal tool was used to examine the quality of the studies included.
RESULTS
A total of 4025 articles were identified, and ten eligible articles, covering 1081 participants, were included in the review. However, there is a lack of high quality randomized controlled trials of providing ACP training for nurses working in non-palliative care hospital settings. The overall quality of the intervention studies was moderate. All the studies included used instructional sessions in their interventions, while some contained group discussion, role-play and the use of advanced technology. The training programs increased the knowledge, attitudes towards shared decision-making, perceived communication skills, confidence, comfort and experiences concerned with discussing end-of-life (EOL) issues. Patient advocacy, job satisfaction and perceived level of adequate training for EOL care were improved. The use of 'decision aids' was rated as acceptable and clinically useful.
CONCLUSIONS
Training for healthcare professionals in ACP has positive effects on their knowledge, attitude and skills. The use of decision aids and advanced technology, instructional sessions with role play, training content focused on ACP communication skills and the needs and experience of patient in the ACP process, and a values-based ACP process are all those factors that made the ACP training programs effective.
Topics: Advance Care Planning; Advance Directives; Decision Making; Evidence-Based Practice; Health Personnel; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31174530
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4192-0 -
Vaccine Oct 2017Many parents make a conscious decision not to vaccinate their child. Multiple beliefs and perceptions surround this choice. If uptake of routine child vaccination is to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many parents make a conscious decision not to vaccinate their child. Multiple beliefs and perceptions surround this choice. If uptake of routine child vaccination is to increase, public health communications about vaccines must be informed by evidence on the factors affecting uptake.
METHOD
We conducted a systematic review to investigate psychological, social and contextual factors associated with uptake of routine vaccines in young children. Studies were included if they reported analyses of the association between psychological factors and uptake or included parents' self-reported reasons for or against vaccination.
RESULTS
Our search identified 9110 citations after deduplication. Sixty-eight citations describing sixty-four studies were included in the review. The quality of the studies was mixed. There is strong evidence for an association between vaccination uptake and: not perceiving vaccines to cause adverse effects; general positive attitudes towards vaccination; positive vaccine recommendations; and perceiving fewer practical difficulties of vaccination. While there was good evidence for an association between vaccination and perceived susceptibility to the illness, evidence for an association between perceived severity of an illness and vaccination was weak. Other factors associated with vaccination include knowledge about the vaccine, social influences and trust in the healthcare profession. Having increased information about the vaccine was associated with vaccination, but the influence of different sources of information needs more research.
CONCLUSION
Understanding which factors are consistently associated with the decision to vaccinate one's child is important to identify messages which should be targeted by public health communications about routine child vaccinations.
Topics: Child; Decision Making; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Parents; Vaccination; Vaccines
PubMed: 28974409
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.046 -
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 -
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 -
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