Literature DB >> 30025154

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

France Légaré1, Rhéda Adekpedjou, Dawn Stacey, Stéphane Turcotte, Jennifer Kryworuchko, Ian D Graham, Anne Lyddiatt, Mary C Politi, Richard Thomson, Glyn Elwyn, Norbert Donner-Banzhoff.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN
RESULTS: We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30025154      PMCID: PMC6513543          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  182 in total

1.  Satisfaction of patients and primary care physicians with shared decision making.

Authors:  Oliver Hirsch; Heidemarie Keller; Christina Albohn-Kühne; Tanja Krones; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.651

2.  Clinical practice guidelines to improve shared decision-making about assistive device use in home care: a pilot intervention study.

Authors:  Marc Roelands; Paulette Van Oost; Veerle Stevens; AnneMarie Depoorter; Ann Buysse
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2004-11

3.  Mediated decision support in prostate cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial of decision counseling.

Authors:  Ronald E Myers; Constantine Daskalakis; Elisabeth J S Kunkel; James R Cocroft; Jeffrey M Riggio; Mark Capkin; Clarence H Braddock
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2010-07-08

Review 4.  An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters.

Authors:  Gregory Makoul; Marla L Clayman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2005-07-26

5.  Personal health records and hypertension control: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Peggy J Wagner; James Dias; Shalon Howard; Kristina W Kintziger; Matthew F Hudson; Yoon-Ho Seol; Pat Sodomka
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Radial artery versus femoral artery access options in coronary angiogram procedures: randomized controlled trial of a patient-decision aid.

Authors:  Jon-David Schwalm; Dawn Stacey; Dan Pericak; Madhu K Natarajan
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2012-04-10

7.  Can consultation skills training change doctors' behaviour to increase involvement of patients in making decisions about standard treatment and clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  P Butow; R Brown; J Aldridge; I Juraskova; P Zoller; F Boyle; M Wilson; J Bernhard
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Deciding how many embryos to transfer after in vitro fertilisation: development and pilot test of a decision aid.

Authors:  Arno M van Peperstraten; Rosella P M G Hermens; Willianne L D M Nelen; Peep F M Stalmeier; Alex M M Wetzels; Pettie H M Maas; Jan A M Kremer; Richard P T M Grol
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2009-05-21

9.  Three questions that patients can ask to improve the quality of information physicians give about treatment options: a cross-over trial.

Authors:  Heather L Shepherd; Alexandra Barratt; Lyndal J Trevena; Kevin McGeechan; Karen Carey; Ronald M Epstein; Phyllis N Butow; Chris B Del Mar; Vikki Entwistle; Martin H N Tattersall
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2011-08-09

10.  Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial.

Authors:  Erik P Hess; Judd E Hollander; Jason T Schaffer; Jeffrey A Kline; Carlos A Torres; Deborah B Diercks; Russell Jones; Kelly P Owen; Zachary F Meisel; Michel Demers; Annie Leblanc; Nilay D Shah; Jonathan Inselman; Jeph Herrin; Ana Castaneda-Guarderas; Victor M Montori
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-12-05
View more
  114 in total

1.  Support Tools for Preference-Sensitive Decisions in Healthcare: Where Are We? Where Do We Go? How Do We Get There?

Authors:  Jan Ostermann; Derek S Brown; Janine A van Til; Nick Bansback; France Légaré; Deborah A Marshall; Meenakshi Bewtra
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Developing a Patient- and Family-Centered Research Agenda for Hospital Medicine: The Improving Hospital Outcomes through Patient Engagement (i-HOPE) Study.

Authors:  James D Harrison; Michelle Archuleta; Esther Avitia; Jim Banta; Joy Benn; Marisha Burden; Vineet Chopra; Rebecca Coker; Shaker Eid; Margaret C Fang; Kathlyn Fletcher; Julie Hagan; Jawali Jaranilla; Monalisa Mullick; Christopher Nyenpan; Lali Silva; Melissa Wurst; Georgiann Ziegler; Luci Leykum
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 2.960

3.  Generalized shared decision making approaches and patient problems. Adapting AHRQ's SHARE Approach for Purposeful SDM.

Authors:  Ian G Hargraves; Alaina K Fournier; Victor M Montori; Arlene S Bierman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2020-06-27

4.  Interventions for involving older patients with multi-morbidity in decision-making during primary care consultations.

Authors:  Joanne E Butterworth; Rebecca Hays; Sinead Tj McDonagh; Suzanne H Richards; Peter Bower; John Campbell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-28

Review 5.  Decision aids for cancer survivors' engagement with survivorship care services after primary treatment: a systematic review.

Authors:  Yu Ke; Hanzhang Zhou; Raymond Javan Chan; Alexandre Chan
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 4.442

6.  OMERACT Development of a Core Domain Set of Outcomes for Shared Decision-making Interventions.

Authors:  Karine Toupin-April; Jennifer L Barton; Liana Fraenkel; Alexa Meara; Linda C Li; Peter Brooks; Maarten de Wit; Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Beverley Shea; Anne Lyddiatt; Cathie Hofstetter; Robin Christensen; Marieke Scholte Voshaar; Maria E Suarez-Almazor; Annelies Boonen; Tanya Meade; Lyn March; Janet Elizabeth Jull; Willemina Campbell; Rieke Alten; Suvi Karuranga; Esi M Morgan; Ayano Kelly; Jessica Kaufman; Sophie Hill; Lara J Maxwell; Dorcas Beaton; Yasser El-Miedany; Shikha Mittoo; Susan J Bartlett; Jasvinder A Singh; Peter S Tugwell
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 4.666

Review 7.  Five Golden Rings to Measure Patient-Centered Care in Rheumatology.

Authors:  Simon Décary; Karine Toupin-April; France Légaré; Jennifer L Barton
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.794

Review 8.  Shared Decision-making in Autoimmune Neurology: Making Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty.

Authors:  David A Lapides
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2021-04

9.  Shared decision making and patient-centeredness for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care-results of the cluster-randomised controlled DEBATE trial.

Authors:  Anja Wollny; Christin Löffler; Eva Drewelow; Attila Altiner; Christian Helbig; Anne Daubmann; Karl Wegscheider; Susanne Löscher; Michael Pentzek; Stefan Wilm; Gregor Feldmeier; Sara Santos
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 2.497

10.  Commentary: Improving the Sustainability of Healthcare in Canada through Physician-Engaged Delivery System Reforms.

Authors:  Amity E Quinn; Braden J Manns
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2021-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.