scholarly journals Effects of Trial Population Selection on Quality of Life and Healthcare Decision-Making: A Systematic Review and Example in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Radioembolization

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 13 ◽  
pp. 835-841
Author(s):  
Richard F Pollock ◽  
Fabien Colaone ◽  
Suki Shergill ◽  
Victoria K Brennan ◽  
Ion Agirrezabal
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Population Selection

Which Nontraditional Outcomes Should Be Measured in Healthcare Decision-Making in Schizophrenia? A Systematic Review

2012 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 198-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Vieta ◽  
Xavier Badia ◽  
Enric Álvarez ◽  
José A. Sacristán
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making

scholarly journals Analysis of the Status and Trends of Chinese Clinical Practice Guideline Development Between 2010 and 2020: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rong Zhang ◽  
Si-yu Yan ◽  
Yun-yun Wang ◽  
Qiao Huang ◽  
Xiang-ying Ren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Status And Trends ◽  
The Status

Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the status and trends of Chinese clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) during the time period 2010–2020 and explore their methodological characteristics. Then, based on the strengths and weaknesses in development, offer several recommendations for the quality improvement which will serve as a reference for the users and developers of CPG.Introduction: With the development of evidence-based medicine (EBM), the CPGs play an increasingly important role in healthcare decision-making both in China and worldwide.Inclusion criteria: The CPGs that have been used to help the health professionals in the healthcare decision-making were included.Methodology: The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang databases were searched from 2010 to 2020 for the studies describing the general and methodological characteristics of Chinese CPGs. Comparisons of the methodological characteristics between the groups were conducted using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. The M-K test was adopted to identify the monotonically increasing or decreasing trends of methodological characteristics over the timespan.Results: A total of 2,654 CPGs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The quantity and quality of the guidelines developed in China have improved over the time span. From 2010 to 2020,the guidelines had differing characteristics and covered a wide range of subjects. In total, 2,318(87.34%) guidelines focused on Western Medicine. Eight (0.30%) had been developed for patient versions of guidelines, 10(0.38%) were tentative guidelines, and 16(0.60%) were rapid advice guidelines. Medical specialty societies (including their branches) (71.1%) were the main guideline makers. The most addressed diseases were neoplasms (14.43%). The target population is mainly adults (84.97%). The methodological quality of consensus-based (CB)-CPGs was obviously lower than evidence-based (EB)-CPGs. Except for the item, “recommendations were based on evidence of systematic reviews,” there were statistical differences in all other methodological items between the EB-CPGS and CB-CPGS (P < 0.01). Higher methodological quality has been observed in EB-CPGs. All the data relating to the methodological characteristics indicated that higher methodological quality was present in the guidelines using GRADE (P < 0.01).Conclusion: The quantity and quality of the guidelines developed in China have improved between 2010 and 2020. CB-CPGs have also paid attention to the methodology quality, but obviously, this is lower than that in the EB-CPGs.

scholarly journals VALUE AND APPLICABILITY OF LARGE ADMINISTRATIVE HEALTHCARE DATABASES IN PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS OUTCOMES RESEARCH

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Taavy Miller ◽  
Shane Wurdeman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Health Economics ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Outcomes Research ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Healthcare Data ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making

The goal of health economics and outcomes research is to improve healthcare decision making. In the absence of high-value clinical data, the availability and quality of administrative healthcare data could be vital in the generation of evidence for orthotics and prosthetics services. The purpose of this article is to provide a stronger understanding of administrative healthcare data analysis, an area that has been scarcely examined within prosthetics and orthotics despite the wealth of information available within such data. Examples of common datasets in this arena currently available are provided, as well as an overview of the limitations and advantages of studies utilizing such datasets. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/35958/28315 How To Cite: Miller TA, Wurdeman S. Value and applicability of large administrative healthcare databases in prosthetics and orthotics outcomes research. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021; Volume 4, Issue 2, No.4. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i2.35958 Corresponding Author: Taavy A Miller, PhD, CPODepartment of Clinical and Scientific Affairs, Hanger Clinic, Austin, Texas, USA.E-Mail: [email protected] ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7117-6124

scholarly journals Which instruments are used to measure shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals? A systematic review protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Francesco Fattori ◽  
Deirdre O'Donnell ◽  
Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín ◽  
Thilo Kroll
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Cognitive Capacity ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Family Carers ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Psychometric Instruments

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a dialogical relationship where the physician and the patient define the problem, discuss the available options according to the patient’s values and preferences, and co-construct the treatment plan. Undertaking SDM in a clinical setting with patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating cognitive capacity may prove challenging. Supported (defined “Assisted” in the Irish context) decision-making describes how people with impaired or fluctuating capacity remain in control of their healthcare-related choices through mechanisms which build and maximise capacity. Supported and assisted decision-making (ADM) within healthcare settings is theoretically and practically novel. Therefore, there is a knowledge gap about the validity of psychometric instruments used to assess ADM and its components within clinical settings. This systematic review aims to identify and characterise instruments currently used to assess shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients with limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals. Methods: A systematic review and narrative synthesis will be performed using a search strategy involving the following databases (PubMed, Cinahl, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO). Quantitative studies published in the last decade and describing psychometric instruments measuring SDM, supported decision-making and ADM with people having limited or fluctuating capacity will be considered eligible for inclusion. Title and abstract screening will be followed by full-text eligibility screening, data extraction, synthesis and analysis. This review will be structured and reported according to the PRISMA checklist. The COSMIN Risk of bias checklist will be used to assess the quality of the instruments. Discussion: The results will inform and be useful to HCPs and policymakers interested in having updated knowledge of the available instruments to assess SDM, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018105360; registered on 10/08/2018.

scholarly journals Which instruments are used to measure shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals? A systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Francesco Fattori ◽  
Deirdre O'Donnell ◽  
Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín ◽  
Thilo Kroll
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Cognitive Capacity ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Family Carers ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Psychometric Instruments

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a dialogical relationship where the physician and the patient define the problem, discuss the available options according to the patient’s values and preferences, and co-construct the treatment plan. Undertaking SDM in a clinical setting with patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating cognitive capacity may prove challenging. Supported (defined “Assisted” in the Irish context) decision-making describes how people with impaired or fluctuating capacity remain in control of their healthcare-related choices through mechanisms which build and maximise capacity. Supported and assisted decision-making (ADM) within healthcare settings is theoretically and practically novel. Therefore, there is a knowledge gap about the validity of psychometric instruments used to assess ADM and its components within clinical settings. This systematic review aims to identify and characterise instruments currently used to assess shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients with limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals. Methods: A systematic review and narrative synthesis will be performed using a search strategy involving the following databases (PubMed, Cinahl, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO). Quantitative studies published in the last decade and describing psychometric instruments measuring SDM, supported decision-making and ADM with people having limited or fluctuating capacity will be considered eligible for inclusion. Title and abstract screening will be followed by full-text eligibility screening, data extraction, synthesis and analysis. This review will be structured and reported according to the PRISMA checklist. The COSMIN Risk of bias checklist will be used to assess the quality of the instruments. Discussion: The results will inform and be useful to HCPs and policymakers interested in having updated knowledge of the available instruments to assess SDM, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018105360; registered on 10/08/2018.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document