Literature DB >> 31142194

Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years: The Anniversary Review.

Mirjam M Garvelink1, Laura Boland2,3, Krystal Klein4, Don Vu Nguyen1, Matthew Menear1, Hilary L Bekker5, Karen B Eden6, Annie LeBlanc, Annette M O'Connor2, Dawn Stacey2,3, France Légaré1,7.   

Abstract

Background. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) measures 5 dimensions of decision making (feeling: uncertain, uninformed, unclear about values, unsupported; ineffective decision making). We examined the use of the DCS over its initial 20 years (1995 to 2015). Methods. We conducted a scoping review with backward citation search in Google Analytics/Web of Science/PubMed, followed by keyword searches in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PRO-Quest, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data (total/subscales). Author dyads independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative data synthesis. Results. We included 394 articles. DCS use appeared to increase over time. Three hundred nine studies (76%) used the original DCS, and 29 (7%) used subscales only. Most studies used the DCS to evaluate the impact of decision support interventions (n = 238, 59%). The DCS was translated into 13 languages. Most decisions were made by people for themselves (n = 353, 87%), about treatment (n = 225, 55%), or testing (n = 91, 23%). The most common decision contexts were oncology (n = 113, 28%) and primary care (n = 82, 20%). Conclusions. This is the first study to descriptively synthesize characteristics of DCS data. Use of the DCS as an outcome measure for health decision interventions has increased over its 20-year existence, demonstrating its relevance as a decision-making evaluation measure. Most studies failed to report when decisional conflict was measured during the decision-making process, making scores difficult to interpret. Findings from this study will be used to update the DCS user manual.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decisional conflict scale; scoping review

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31142194     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19851345

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  20 in total

1.  Evaluation of a computerized contraceptive decision aid: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Tessa Madden; Jessica Holttum; Ragini Maddipati; Gina M Secura; Robert F Nease; Jeffrey F Peipert; Mary C Politi
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 3.375

2.  Impact of a Mobile Application for Tracking Nausea and Vomiting During Pregnancy (NVP) on NVP Symptoms, Quality of Life, and Decisional Conflict Regarding NVP Treatments: MinSafeStart Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Elin Ngo; Maria Bich-Thuy Truong; Hedvig Nordeng; David Wright
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 4.947

3.  Shared Decision Making for Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.

Authors:  Marc A Probst; Michelle P Lin; Jeremy J Sze; Erik P Hess; Maggie Breslin; Dominick L Frosch; Benjamin C Sun; Marie-Noelle Langan; Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy; Lynne D Richardson
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 3.451

4.  Certainty and intention in pregnancy decision-making: An exploratory study.

Authors:  Brenly B Rowland; Corinne H Rocca; Lauren J Ralph
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 3.375

5.  Acceptability of 3D-printed breast models and their impact on the decisional conflict of breast cancer patients: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Lumarie Santiago; Robert J Volk; Cristina M Checka; Dalliah Black; Joanna Lee; Jessica S Colen; Catherine Akay; Abigail Caudle; Henry Kuerer; Elsa M Arribas
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 3.454

6.  Reply to What is a good medical choice?

Authors:  Christopher P Filson; Fangxin Hong; Niya Xiong; Rachel Pozzar; Barbara Halpenny; Donna L Berry
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 6.921

7.  Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: How Well Are We "Sharing"?

Authors:  Shawn P E Nishi; Lisa M Lowenstein; Tito R Mendoza; Maria A Lopez Olivo; Laura C Crocker; Karen Sepucha; Jiangong Niu; Robert J Volk
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2021-02-06       Impact factor: 10.262

8.  High-risk surgery among older adults: Not-quite shared decision-making.

Authors:  Ana C De Roo; Crystal Ann Vitous; Samantha J Rivard; Michaela C Bamdad; Sara M Jafri; Mary E Byrnes; Pasithorn A Suwanabol
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 4.348

9.  Evaluation of a Video Decision Aid to Reduce Decisional Conflict in Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) Decision-Making.

Authors:  Jarred V Gallegos; Barry Edelstein; Alvin H Moss
Journal:  J Palliat Care       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 2.250

10.  Development and field testing of a patient decision aid for management of acute Achilles tendon rupture: a study protocol.

Authors:  Brad Meulenkamp; Julia Brillinger; Dean Fergusson; Dawn Stacey; Ian D Graham
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-07-24       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.