How can systematic review methods help now and also prepare for future decision making on mechanistic data?

2021 ◽  
Vol 350 ◽  
pp. S4
Author(s):  
A. Rooney
2021 ◽  
pp. 104973152098484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karmen Toros

This article explores child welfare workers’ experiences of children’s participation in decision making in the child protection system. The systematic review follows the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and includes 12 peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals from 2009 to 2019. Findings indicate that children’s participation in decision making is generally limited or nonexistent. The age of the child is an important determining factor concerning whether the child is given the opportunity to participate in decision making. Potential harm for children that may result from participation is considered when deciding on whether to include a child in the decision-making process.


Author(s):  
María José Hernández-Leal ◽  
María José Pérez-Lacasta ◽  
María Feijoo-Cid ◽  
Vanesa Ramos-García ◽  
Misericòrdia Carles-Lavila

Neurosurgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenny Yat Hong Kwan ◽  
J Naresh-Babu ◽  
Wilco Jacobs ◽  
Marinus de Kleuver ◽  
David W Polly ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND Existing adult spinal deformity (ASD) classification systems are based on radiological parameters but management of ASD patients requires a holistic approach. A comprehensive clinically oriented patient profile and classification of ASD that can guide decision-making and correlate with patient outcomes is lacking. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review to determine the purpose, characteristic, and methodological quality of classification systems currently used in ASD. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science for literature published between January 2000 and October 2018. From the included studies, list of classification systems, their methodological measurement properties, and correlation with treatment outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS Out of 4470 screened references, 163 were included, and 54 different classification systems for ASD were identified. The most commonly used was the Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab classification system. A total of 35 classifications were based on radiological parameters, and no correlation was found between any classification system levels with patient-related outcomes. Limited evidence of limited quality was available on methodological quality of the classification systems. For studies that reported the data, intraobserver and interobserver reliability were good (kappa = 0.8). CONCLUSION This systematic literature search revealed that current classification systems in clinical use neither include a comprehensive set of dimensions relevant to decision-making nor did they correlate with outcomes. A classification system comprising a core set of patient-related, radiological, and etiological characteristics relevant to the management of ASD is needed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariadna Huertas-Zurriaga ◽  
Patrick A. Palmieri ◽  
Joan E. Edwards ◽  
Sandra K. Cesario ◽  
Sergio Alonso-Fernandez ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Women living with HIV (WLH) lack evidence-based information about reproductive options while managing pressures from family, clinicians, and communities to give up the idea of having children. As the reproduction intentions of WLH are not well understood, stigmatizing behaviors force them to hide their disease to avoid rejection by their family, partner, and social networks. Compliance with social norms, fear of stigma, and discrimination influence their experience. Current research is individual qualitative studies lacking the synthesis perspective necessary to guide intervention development. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence to explain the reproductive decision-making process for WLH in developed countries. Methods A systematic review with qualitative research synthesis was conducted through searches in 10 electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, Social Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cuidatge, Cuiden Enfispo, and SciELO). Studies published in journals from 1995 to 2019 with qualitative data about reproductive decision-making among WLH in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Developed country was operationalized by membership in the OECD for comparative conditions of social wellbeing and economic stability. The CASP and JBI checklists for qualitative research were used to assess study quality and methodological integrity. Thematic analysis and qualitative meta-summary techniques were used for the synthesis. Results Twenty studies from 12 developed countries were included in the synthesis. Findings were organized into 3 meta-themes from 15 themes and 45 subthemes, including: (1) Shattered identity, (2) Barriers, inequities, and misinformation, (3) Coping, resiliency, and support. Reproductive decision-making was perceived as a complex process influenced by facilitators and barriers. The facilitators helped WLH cope with their new situation to become more resilient, while the barriers made their situation more difficult to manage. Conclusion WLH encounter reproductive decision-making with knowledge deficits and limited social support. An integrated approach to holistic care with comprehensive multidisciplinary counseling is needed to support WLH. Clinicians could benefit from professional development to learn how to be authentically present for WLH, including engaging in conversations, demonstrating compassion, and understanding situations. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines need to be tailored for the family planning and sexual health needs of WLH.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eveline A. Noteboom ◽  
Anne M. May ◽  
Elsken Wall ◽  
Niek J. Wit ◽  
Charles W. Helsper

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e044472
Author(s):  
Saar Hommes ◽  
Ruben Vromans ◽  
Felix Clouth ◽  
Xander Verbeek ◽  
Ignace de Hingh ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lissa Pacheco-Brousseau ◽  
Marylène Charette ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Stéphane Poitras

Abstract Background Total hip and knee arthroplasty are a highly performed surgery; however, patient satisfaction with surgery results and patient involvement in the decision-making process remains low. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are tools used in clinical practices to facilitate active patient involvement in healthcare decision-making. Nonetheless, PtDA effects have not been systematically evaluated for hip and knee total joint arthroplasty (TJA) decision-making. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the effect of patient decision aids compared to alternative of care on quality and process of decision-making when provided to adults with hip and knee osteoarthritis considering primary elective TJA. Methods This systematic review will follow the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. This protocol was reported based on the PRISMA-P checklist guidelines. Studies will be searched in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Eligible studies will be randomized control trial (RCT) evaluating the effect of PtDA on TJA decision-making. Descriptive and meta-analysis of outcomes will include decision quality (knowledge and values-based choice), decisional conflict, patient involvement, decision-making process satisfaction, actual decision made, health outcomes, and harm(s). Risk of bias will be evaluated with Cochrane’s risk of bias tool for RCTs. Quality and strength of recommendations will be appraised with Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Discussion This review will provide a summary of RCT findings on PtDA effect on decision-making quality and process of adults with knee and hip osteoarthritis considering primary elective TJA. Further, it will provide evidence comparing different types of PtDA used for TJA decision-making. This review is expected to inform further research on joint replacement decision-making quality and processes and on ways PtDAs facilitate shared decision-making for orthopedic surgery. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020171334


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document