scholarly journals Healthcare professionals’ behaviour regarding the implementation of shared decision-making in screening programmes: A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
María José Hernández-Leal ◽  
María José Pérez-Lacasta ◽  
María Feijoo-Cid ◽  
Vanesa Ramos-García ◽  
Misericòrdia Carles-Lavila
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Merlo ◽  
Mieke van Driel ◽  
Lisa Hall
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiments ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Validity Assessment

Abstract Introduction Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been used to measure patient and healthcare professionals preferences in a range of settings internationally. Using DCEs in primary care is valuable for determining how to improve rational shared decision making. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the validity of the methods used for DCEs assessing the decision making of healthcare professionals in primary care. Main body A systematic search was conducted to identify articles with original data from a discrete choice experiment where the population was primary healthcare professionals. All publication dates from database inception to 29th February 2020 were included. A data extraction and validity assessment template based on guidelines was used. After screening, 34 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. The sample sizes of the DCEs ranged from 10 to 3727. The published DCEs often provided insufficient detail about the process of determining the attributes and levels. The majority of the studies did not involve primary care healthcare professionals outside of the research team in attribute identification and selection. Less than 80% of the DCEs were piloted and few papers investigated internal or external validity. Conclusions For findings to translate into improvements in rational shared decision making in primary care DCEs need to be internally and externally valid and the findings need to be able to be communicated to stakeholders in a way that is understandable and relevant.

scholarly journals Can electronic assessment tools improve the process of shared decision-making? A systematic review

2020 ◽  
pp. 183335832095438
Author(s):  
Nyantara Wickramasekera ◽  
Sarah K Taylor ◽  
Elizabeth Lumley ◽  
Thomas Gray ◽  
Emma Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Electronic Assessment

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.

scholarly journals Patient decision aid based on multi-criteria decision analysis for disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis: prototype development

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I. E. H. Kremer ◽  
P. J. Jongen ◽  
S. M. A. A. Evers ◽  
E. L. J. Hoogervorst ◽  
W. I. M. Verhagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Disease Modifying Drugs ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Further Development

Abstract Background Since decision making about treatment with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is preference sensitive, shared decision making between patient and healthcare professional should take place. Patient decision aids could support this shared decision making process by providing information about the disease and the treatment options, to elicit the patient’s preference and to support patients and healthcare professionals in discussing these preferences and matching them with a treatment. Therefore, a prototype of a patient decision aid for MS patients in the Netherlands—based on the principles of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) —was developed, following the recommendations of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. MCDA was chosen as it might reduce cognitive burden of considering treatment options and matching patient preferences with the treatment options. Results After determining the scope to include DMDs labelled for relapsing-remitting MS and clinically isolated syndrome, users’ informational needs were assessed using focus groups (N = 19 patients) and best-worst scaling surveys with patients (N = 185), neurologists and nurses (N = 60) to determine which information about DMDs should be included in the patient decision aid. Next, an online format and computer-based delivery of the patient decision aid was chosen to enable embedding of MCDA. A literature review was conducting to collect evidence on the effectiveness and burden of use of the DMDs. A prototype was developed next, and alpha testing to evaluate its comprehensibility and usability with in total thirteen patients and four healthcare professionals identified several issues regarding content and framing, methods for weighting importance of criteria in the MCDA structure, and the presentation of the conclusions of the patient decision aid ranking the treatment options according to the patient’s preferences. Adaptations were made accordingly, but verification of the rankings provided, validation of the patient decision aid, evaluation of the feasibility of implementation and assessing its value for supporting shared decision making should be addressed in further development of the patient decision aid. Conclusion This paper aimed to provide more transparency regarding the developmental process of an MCDA-based patient decision aid for treatment decisions for MS and the challenges faced during this process. Issues identified in the prototype were resolved as much as possible, though some issues remain. Further development is needed to overcome these issues before beta pilot testing with patients and healthcare professionals at the point of clinical decision-making can take place to ultimately enable making conclusions about the value of the MCDA-based patient decision aid for MS patients, healthcare professionals and the quality of care.

Shared Decision Making in Psoriasis: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Hamilton Larsen ◽  
Kåre Birger Hagen ◽  
Anne Lene Krogstad ◽  
Astrid Klopstad Wahl
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
France Légaré ◽  
Rhéda Adekpedjou ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Stéphane Turcotte ◽  
Jennifer Kryworuchko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals Strategies to facilitate shared decision-making about pediatric oncology clinical trial enrollment: A systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 101 (7) ◽  
pp. 1157-1174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eden G. Robertson ◽  
Claire E. Wakefield ◽  
Christina Signorelli ◽  
Richard J. Cohn ◽  
Andrea Patenaude ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Pediatric Oncology ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment

scholarly journals Interventions that Facilitate Shared Decision-Making in Cancers with Active Surveillance as Treatment Option: a Systematic Review of Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
G. E. Collée ◽  
B. J. van der Wilk ◽  
J. J. B. van Lanschot ◽  
J. J. Busschbach ◽  
L. Timmermans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Treatment Option ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Review Of Literature

scholarly journals Making shared decision-making (SDM) a reality: protocol of a large-scale long-term SDM implementation programme at a Northern German University Hospital

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e037575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Danner ◽  
Friedemann Geiger ◽  
Kai Wehkamp ◽  
Jens Ulrich Rueffer ◽  
Christine Kuch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Programme Implementation ◽  
Patient Decision

IntroductionShared decision-making (SDM) is not yet widely used when making decisions in German hospitals. Making SDM a reality is a complex task. It involves training healthcare professionals in SDM communication and enabling patients to actively participate in communication, in addition to providing sound, easy to understand information on treatment alternatives in the form of evidence-based patient decision aids (EbPDAs). This project funded by the German Innovation Fund aims at designing, implementing and evaluating a multicomponent, large-scale and integrative SDM programme—called SHARE TO CARE (S2C)—at all clinical departments of a University Hospital Campus in Northern Germany within a 4-year time period.Methods and analysisS2C tackles the aforementioned components of SDM: (1) training physicians in SDM communication, (2) activating and empowering patients, (3) developing EbPDAs in the most common/relevant diseases and (4) training other healthcare professionals in SDM coaching. S2C is designed together with patients and providers. The physicians’ training programme entails an online and an in situ training module. The decision coach training is based on a similar but less comprehensive approach. The development of online EbPDAs follows the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and includes written, graphical and video-based information. Validated outcomes of SDM implementation are measured in a preintervention and postintervention evaluation design. Process evaluation accompanies programme implementation. Health economic impact of the intervention is investigated using a propensity-score-matched approach based on potentially preference-sensitive hospital decisions.Ethics and disseminationEthics committee review approval has been obtained from Medical Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel. Project information and results will be disseminated at conferences, on project-hosted websites at University Hospital Medical Center Schleswig Holstein and by S2C as well as in peer-reviewed and professional journals.

TOOLS TO PROMOTE SHARED DECISION-MAKING IN LUNG CANCER SCREENING USING LOW-DOSE COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

CHEST Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 156 (4) ◽  
pp. A1732
Author(s):  
Mayuko Fukunaga ◽  
FCCP ◽  
Kyle Halligan ◽  
Jennifer Kodela ◽  
Shaun Toomey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Computerized Tomography ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document