BACKGROUND: : Shared decision making (SDM) is a key attribute of patient-centered care, which empowers palliative care patients to be able to make optimal medical decisions about end-of-life treatments based on their own values and preferences. AIM:: The aim of this systematic literature review is to detail and compare interventions supporting SDM over the last 10 years (January 2008 to December 2017) and to analyze patient/caregiver outcomes at the end of life. METHODS: : This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched with key search terms: SDM, decision aid, decision support, palliative care, and hospice care. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. RESULTS: : The initial search yielded 2705 articles, and 12 studies were included in the final review. The quality of the studies was modest and technology-enabled delivery modes (e.g., video, DVD, web-based tool) were most commonly used. Patient/caregiver knowledge of end-of-life care was the most common primary outcome across studies. The strength of the association between the SDM interventions and patient/caregiver outcomes varied. CONCLUSION: : The findings from the studies that examined the effects of the SDM intervention on patient outcomes were inconsistent, highlighting the need for further SDM intervention studies among diverse patient populations using consistent measures. Given the availability of health technologies, future studies should focus on developing individual-tailored, technology-enabled interventions to support patient-centered medical decision making.
BACKGROUND: : Shared decision making (SDM) is a key attribute of patient-centered care, which empowers palliative care patients to be able to make optimal medical decisions about end-of-life treatments based on their own values and preferences. AIM:: The aim of this systematic literature review is to detail and compare interventions supporting SDM over the last 10 years (January 2008 to December 2017) and to analyze patient/caregiver outcomes at the end of life. METHODS: : This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched with key search terms: SDM, decision aid, decision support, palliative care, and hospice care. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. RESULTS: : The initial search yielded 2705 articles, and 12 studies were included in the final review. The quality of the studies was modest and technology-enabled delivery modes (e.g., video, DVD, web-based tool) were most commonly used. Patient/caregiver knowledge of end-of-life care was the most common primary outcome across studies. The strength of the association between the SDM interventions and patient/caregiver outcomes varied. CONCLUSION: : The findings from the studies that examined the effects of the SDM intervention on patient outcomes were inconsistent, highlighting the need for further SDM intervention studies among diverse patient populations using consistent measures. Given the availability of health technologies, future studies should focus on developing individual-tailored, technology-enabled interventions to support patient-centered medical decision making.
Entities:
Keywords:
decision aid; decision support; end of life; hospice; palliative care; shared decision making; systematic literature review
Authors: Kathleen Benton; James Stephens; Robert Vogel; Gerald Ledlow; Richard Ackermann; Carol Babcock; Georgia McCook Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Michael J Green; Jane R Schubart; Megan M Whitehead; Elana Farace; Erik Lehman; Benjamin H Levi Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: William E Rosa; Harleah G Buck; Allison P Squires; Sharon L Kozachik; Huda Abu-Saad Huijer; Marie Bakitas; Juli McGowan Boit; Patricia K Bradley; Pamela Z Cacchione; Garrett K Chan; Nigel Crisp; Constance Dahlin; Pat Daoust; Patricia M Davidson; Sheila Davis; Myrna A A Doumit; Regina M Fink; Keela A Herr; Pamela S Hinds; Tonda L Hughes; Viola Karanja; Deborah J Kenny; Cynthia R King; Hester C Klopper; Ann R Knebel; Ann E Kurth; Elizabeth A Madigan; Pamela Malloy; Marianne Matzo; Polly Mazanec; Salimah H Meghani; Todd B Monroe; Patricia J Moreland; Judith A Paice; J Craig Phillips; Cynda H Rushton; Judith Shamian; Mona Shattell; Julia A Snethen; Connie M Ulrich; Dorothy Wholihan; Lucia D Wocial; Betty R Ferrell Journal: Nurs Outlook Date: 2021-10-06 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Debra Parker Oliver; Karla T Washington; Kyle Pitzer; Lori Popejoy; Patrick White; Audrey S Wallace; Amy Grimsley; George Demiris Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: William E Rosa; Katherine I Pettus; Liliana De Lima; Allison Silvers; Stacie Sinclair; Lukas Radbruch Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Sofía García-Sanjuán; Manuel Fernández-Alcántara; Violeta Clement-Carbonell; Concepción Petra Campos-Calderón; Núria Orts-Beneito; María José Cabañero-Martínez Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-01-13
Authors: Hanan Aboumatar; Samantha Pitts; Ritu Sharma; Asar Das; Brandon M Smith; Jeff Day; Katherine Holzhauer; Sejean Yang; Eric B Bass; Wendy L Bennett Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2022-03-05
Authors: Maureen Thodé; H Roeline W Pasman; Liesbeth M van Vliet; Olga C Damman; Johannes C F Ket; Anneke L Francke; Irene P Jongerden Journal: BMJ Support Palliat Care Date: 2020-10-05 Impact factor: 4.633