scholarly journals The Role of Decision Impact Studies in Genomic Medicine in Cancer Care: A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Parker ◽  
Fiona A Miller
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Genomic Medicine ◽  
Impact Studies ◽  
The Impact

Abstract BackgroundDecision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in oncology in recent years, particularly in breast cancer prognostic research. Such studies, which aim to evaluate the impact of a test on clinical decision-making, appear to be a new form of knowledge with the potential to impact clinical practice and regulatory decision-making in genomic medicine. Yet their origins, intended purpose and usage have not yet been explored. The objectives of this review are to identify and characterize decision impact studies in genomic medicine in cancer care. This review is comprised of two parts. First, we will conduct a scoping review to catalogue the characteristics of decision impact studies. The scoping review will be followed by a bibliometric analysis to understand the role of actors and institutions in the production and dissemination of this new knowledge, by identifying influential articles, authors, global research trends and collaboration networks. MethodsWe will conduct a scoping review and a bibliometric analysis of the scoping review results. The search will include four databases, Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, using a comprehensive search strategy developed through a preliminary review of the literature. Arksey & O’Malley’s scoping review methodology, with updates by Levac et al. will be used, and the review will be reported following the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The FT Model will be used to collect and analyze data on clinical utility of decision impact studies. Our bibliometric analysis, using Bibliometrix software, will elucidate the evolution of these studies and provide data on the trends, influences and networks emerging in the field.DiscussionThis review will be a first step in understanding the evolution and uses of these studies and their potential influence on the integration of emerging genomic technologies into clinical practice. By exploring their origin and evolution across space and time, this study will equip future research to investigate the role of these studies in decision-making for regulatory processes, including market access and public and private coverage decision-making. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/hm3jr

scholarly journals The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Health Equity in Oncology: A Scoping Review

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4934-4934
Author(s):  
Paul Istasy ◽  
Wen Shen Lee ◽  
Alla Iansavitchene ◽  
Ross Upshur ◽  
Bekim Sadikovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Resource Limited Settings ◽  
Resource Limited ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction: The expanding use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in hematology and oncology research and practice creates an urgent need to consider the potential impact of these technologies on health equity at both local and global levels. Fairness and equity are issues of growing concern in AI ethics, raising problems ranging from bias in datasets and algorithms to disparities in access to technology. The impact of AI on health equity in oncology, however, remains underexplored. We conducted a scoping review to characterize, evaluate, and identify gaps in the existing literature on AI applications in oncology and their implications for health equity in cancer care. Methodology: We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE from January 1, 2000 to March 28, 2021 using key terms for AI, health equity, and cancer. Our search was restricted to English language abstracts with no restrictions by publication type. Two reviewers screened a total of 9519 abstracts, and 321 met inclusion criteria for full-text review. 247 were included in the final analysis after assessment by three reviewers. Studies were analysed descriptively, by location, type of cancer and AI application, as well as thematically, based on issues pertaining to health equity in oncology. Results: Of the 247 studies included in our analysis, 150 (60.7%) were based in North America, 57 (23.0%) in Asia, 29 (11.7%) in Europe, 5 (2.1%) in Central/South America, 4 (1.6%) in Oceania, and 2 (0.9%) in Africa. 71 (28.6%) were reviews and commentaries, and 176 were (71.3%) clinical studies. 25 (10.1%) focused on AI applications in screening, 42 (17.0%) in diagnostics, 46 (18.6%) in prognostication, and 7 (2.9%) in treatment. 40 (16.3%) used AI as a tool for clinical/epidemiological research and 87 (35.2%) discussed multiple applications of AI. A diverse range of cancers were represented in the studies, including hematologic malignancies. Our scoping review identified three overarching themes in the literature, which largely focused on how AI might improve health equity in oncology. These included: (1) the potential for AI reduce disparities by improving access to health services in resource-limited settings through applications such as low-cost cancer screening technologies and decision support systems; (2) the ability of AI to mitigate bias in clinical decision-making through algorithms that alert clinicians to potential sources of bias thereby allowing for more equitable and individualized care; (3) the use of AI as a research tool to identify disparities in cancer outcomes based on factors such as race, gender and socioeconomic status, and thus inform health policy. While most of the literature emphasized the positive impact of AI in oncology, there was only limited discussion of AI's potential adverse effects on health equity . Despite engaging with the use of AI in resource-limited settings, ethical issues surrounding data extraction and AI trials in low-resource settings were infrequently raised. Similarly, AI's potential to reinforce bias and widen disparities in cancer care was under-examined despite engagement with related topics of bias in clinical decision-making. Conclusion: The overwhelming majority of the literature identified by our scoping review highlights the benefits of AI applications in oncology, including its potential to improve access to care in low-resource settings, mitigate bias in clinical decision-making, and identify disparities in cancer outcomes. However, AI's potential negative impacts on health equity in oncology remain underexplored: ethical issues arising from deploying AI technologies in low-resources settings, and issues of bias in datasets and algorithms were infrequently discussed in articles dealing with related themes. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals The role of nurses and patients' involvement in the clinical decision-making process

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1065-1070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Catarina Ferreira de Campos ◽  
João Manuel Garcia do Nascimento Graveto
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Healthcare Improvement

This paper is a literature review based on articles in the nursing field about shared clinical decision. The objectives are to examine the role of nurses and patients in the decision-making process in the context of clinical practice. To support these themes, a review of recent literature was conducted with the following results: patients prefer shared decision-making with professionals who should support and provide information to patients in order to overcome the barriers hampering patients' involvement in decision-making. There is a clear need for more research studies that address the problems in the clinical decision-making process so as to contribute to healthcare improvement.

scholarly journals Rational use of diagnostic tests for clinical decision making

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 452-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Maria Buehler ◽  
Bruna de Oliveira Ascef ◽  
Haliton Alves de Oliveira Júnior ◽  
Cleusa Pinheiro Ferri ◽  
Jefferson Gomes Fernandes
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Rational Use ◽  
Cross Sectional Design ◽  
The Impact

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: To assist clinicians to make adequate interpretation of scientific evidence from studies that evaluate diagnostic tests in order to allow their rational use in clinical practice. METHODS: This is a narrative review focused on the main concepts, study designs, the adequate interpretation of the diagnostic accuracy data, and making inferences about the impact of diagnostic testing in clinical practice. RESULTS: Most of the literature that evaluates the performance of diagnostic tests uses cross-sectional design. Randomized clinical trials, in which diagnostic strategies are compared, are scarce. Cross-sectional studies measure diagnostic accuracy outcomes that are considered indirect and insufficient to define the real benefit for patients. Among the accuracy outcomes, the positive and negative likelihood ratios are the most useful for clinical management. Variations in the study's cross-sectional design, which may add bias to the results, as well as other domains that contribute to decreasing the reliability of the findings, are discussed, as well as how to extrapolate such accuracy findings on impact and consequences considered important for the patient. Aspects of costs, time to obtain results, patients’ preferences and values should preferably be considered in decision making. CONCLUSION: Knowing the methodology of diagnostic accuracy studies is fundamental, but not sufficient, for the rational use of diagnostic tests. There is a need to balance the desirable and undesirable consequences of tests results for the patients in order to favor a rational decision-making approach about which tests should be recommended in clinical practice.

The clinical laboratory: a decision maker hub

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
María Salinas ◽  
Maite López-Garrigós ◽  
Emilio Flores ◽  
Ester Martín ◽  
Carlos Leiva-Salinas
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Laboratory Testing ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Laboratory Model ◽  
Automatic Registration ◽  
Occult Disease ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objectives We aimed to share a new laboratory model based on laboratory knowledge, meaningful use of information technology, and partnership with clinicians, to lead the appropriate use of laboratory testing and clinical decision making in the diagnosis of as-yet-undiagnosed disease. More specifically, we evaluate the role of eight different opportunistic interventions to diagnose certain asymptomatic disorders, by means of the automatic registration of appropriate laboratory testing according to different scenarios. Methods This is a retrospective longitudinal study to evaluate the impact of laboratory interventions on the diagnosis of different diseases and on patient care, including data from January 2012 to September 2020. Results Overall, the above strategies have so far identified 2063 patients with clinically relevant as-yet-undiagnosed disorders who would have otherwise remained occult, such as for instance, primary hyperparathyroidism, diabetes, and hypomagnesemia. Conclusions We are facing a new laboratory model, a leading laboratory rather than a passive traditional laboratory, not just to intervene in clinical decision-making, but to make the clinical decision, through the identification of patients with occult disease.

scholarly journals A scoping review protocol of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practitioner professional organisations

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Emer O'Brien ◽  
Barbara Clyne ◽  
Susan M. Smith ◽  
Noirin O'Herlihy ◽  
Velma Harkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
General Practice ◽  
General Practitioner ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based

Introduction: General practitioners (GPs) strive to use a patient centered approach to achieve shared decision making by integrating clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. In order to achieve this standard of care, GPs require relevant, up to date and high quality evidence. Currently there is a gap in the literature regarding the role of GP professional organisations internationally in producing and publishing evidence based guidance and clinical guidelines for GPs. This protocol outlines a scoping review to identify what evidence-based guidance is produced by general practitioner professional organisations internationally in terms of topic content, the structure and methods used to develop guidance and ways of disseminating this guidance, to support general practice clinical decision making. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted using the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), will be used to guide the reporting. Two researchers will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus), grey literature sources and contact international GP professional organisations directly to identify appropriate studies for inclusion. Key information will be categorised and classified to generate a summary of the methods used internationally to develop and implement evidence-based guides for general practitioners and a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Conclusions: This scoping review will examine current practice internationally regarding the role of General Practice professional organisations in producing and publishing clinical guidelines and evidence based guidance to support general practitioner’s clinical decision making to benefit patient care.

scholarly journals Considering Values and Contexts in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Are We Becoming More Person-Centred?

1970 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Chin-Yee BSc MA ◽  
Linda Richardson MD MA FCRPC
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Patient Values

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become ubiquitous in medicine, created to promote rational and standardized clinical decision-making. CPGs are often criticized for overlooking patient values and contexts, which many argue deserve a more explicit place in recommendations. This article explores the role of patient values and contexts in CPGs based on a critical discourse analysis of Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) Guidelines from 1992-2013. We highlight emerging discourses related to person-centred care in CDA guidelines during this period, which support an increasing emphasis on collaboration and shared decision-making, as well as consideration of patient values and contexts. We discuss possible reasons for this shift and the implications for practitioners. Despite this encouraging trend, our analysis also suggests areas for improvement, particularly concerning the integration of patient preferences in clinical decision making and research.

scholarly journals Online Reviews and Product Sales: The Role of Review Visibility

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 638-669
Author(s):  
Miriam Alzate ◽  
Marta Arce-Urriza ◽  
Javier Cebollada
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dynamic Models ◽  
Generalized Method Of Moments ◽  
Online Reviews ◽  
Consumer Decision Making ◽  
Product Sales ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Empirical Analysis

When studying the impact of online reviews on product sales, previous scholars have usually assumed that every review for a product has the same probability of being viewed by consumers. However, decision-making and information processing theories underline that the accessibility of information plays a role in consumer decision-making. We incorporate the notion of review visibility to study the relationship between online reviews and product sales, which is proxied by sales rank information, studying three different cases: (1) when every online review is assumed to have the same probability of being viewed; (2) when we assume that consumers sort online reviews by the most helpful mechanism; and (3) when we assume that consumers sort online reviews by the most recent mechanism. Review non-textual and textual variables are analyzed. The empirical analysis is conducted using a panel of 119 cosmetic products over a period of nine weeks. Using the system generalized method of moments (system GMM) method for dynamic models of panel data, our findings reveal that review variables influence product sales, but the magnitude, and even the direction of the effect, vary amongst visibility cases. Overall, the characteristics of the most helpful reviews have a higher impact on sales.

scholarly journals The use of multiple-criteria decision-making theory to measure students’ perceptions of high-fidelity simulation

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 88-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Anne Jersby ◽  
Paul Van-Schaik ◽  
Stephen Green ◽  
Lili Nacheva-Skopalik
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
High Fidelity ◽  
High Fidelity Simulation ◽  
Initial Exposure ◽  
Repeated Measures Design

BackgroundHigh-Fidelity Simulation (HFS) has great potential to improve decision-making in clinical practice. Previous studies have found HFS promotes self-confidence, but its effectiveness in clinical practice has not been established. The aim of this research is to establish if HFS facilitates learning that informs decision-making skills in clinical practice using MultipleCriteria DecisionMaking Theory (MCDMT).MethodsThe sample was 2nd year undergraduate pre-registration adult nursing students.MCDMT was used to measure the students’ experience of HFS and how it developed their clinical decision-making skills. MCDMT requires characteristic measurements which for the learning experience were based on five factors that underpin successful learning, and for clinical decision-making, an analytical framework was used. The study used a repeated-measures design to take two measurements: the first one after the first simulation experience and the second one after clinical placement. Baseline measurements were obtained from academics. Data were analysed using the MCDMT tool.ResultsAfter their initial exposure to simulation learning, students reported that HFS provides a high-quality learning experience (87%) and supports all aspects of clinical decision-making (85%). Following clinical practice, the level of support for clinical decision-making remained at 85%, suggesting that students believe HFS promotes transferability of knowledge to the practice setting.ConclusionOverall, students report a high level of support for learning and developing clinical decision-making skills from HFS. However, there are no comparative data available from classroom teaching of similar content so it cannot be established if these results are due to HFS alone.

Clinical Conundrums When Integrating the QbTest into a Standard ADHD Assessment of Children and Young People

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carsten Vogt
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Ecological Validity ◽  
Neuropsychological Test ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Standard Clinical Practice ◽  
Novel Method ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe uptake of the QbTest in clinical practice is increasing and has recently been supported by research evidence proposing its effectiveness in relation to clinical decision-making. However, the exact underlying process leading to this clinical benefit is currently not well established and requires further clarification. For the clinician, certain challenges arise when adding the QbTest as a novel method to standard clinical practice, such as having the skills required to interpret neuropsychological test information and assess for diagnostically relevant neurocognitive domains that are related to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or how neurocognitive domains express themselves within the behavioral classifications of ADHD and how the quantitative measurement of activity in a laboratory setting compares with real-life (ecological validity) situations as well as the impact of comorbidity on test results. This article aims to address these clinical conundrums in aid of developing a consistent approach and future guidelines in clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document