Shared decision-making for cancer care among racial and ethnic minorities: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mead EL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3828995 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Shared decision-making for cancer care among racial and ethnic minorities: a systematic review.
Mead Erin L EL Doorenbos Ardith Z AZ Javid Sara H SH Haozous Emily A EA Alvord Lori Arviso LA Flum David R DR Morris Arden M AM
American journal of public health 20131017 12
To assess decision-making for cancer treatment among racial/ethnic minority patients, we systematically reviewed and synthesized evidence from studies of "shared decision-making," "cancer," and "minority groups," using PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and EMBASE. We identified significant themes that we compared across studies, refined, and organized into a conceptual model. Five major themes emerged: treatment decision-making, patient factors, family and important others, community, and provider facto ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature to identify interventions that improve minority health related to colorectal cancer care. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases, from 1950 to 2010. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: Interventions in US populations eligible for colorectal cancer screening, and composed of ?50 % racial/ethnic minorities (or that included a specific sub-analysis by race/ethnicity). All included studies were linked to an identifiable healthcare source. The three authors independently reviewed the abstracts of all the articles and a final list was determined by consensus. All papers were independently reviewed and quality scores were calculated and assigned using the Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included in our final analysis. Patient education involving phone or in-person contact combined with navigation can lead to modest improvements, on the order of 15 percentage points, in colorectal cancer screening rates in minority populations. Provider-directed multi-modal interventions composed of education sessions and reminders, as well as pure educational interventions were found to be effective in raising colorectal cancer screening rates, also on the order of 10 to 15 percentage points. No relevant interventions focusing on post-screening follow up, treatment adherence and survivorship were identified. LIMITATIONS: This review excluded any intervention studies that were not tied to an identifiable healthcare source. The minority populations in most studies reviewed were predominantly Hispanic and African American, limiting generalizability to other ethnic and minority populations. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Tailored patient education combined with patient navigation services, and physician training in communicating with patients of low health literacy, can modestly improve adherence to CRC screening. The onus is now on researchers to continue to evaluate and refine these interventions and begin to expand them to the entire colon cancer care continuum.
| S-EPMC3403155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Multiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consultations, and the metrics used to measure SDM and SDM-related outcomes. METHODS:This was a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials that measured SDM during consultations in which surgery was a treatment option. Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two investigators independently. RESULTS:Thirty-two articles were included. SDM was measured using nine different metrics. Thirty-six per cent of 13?176 patients and surgeons perceived their consultation as SDM, as opposed to patient- or surgeon-driven. Surgeons more often perceived the decision-making process as SDM than patients (43·6 versus 29·3 per cent respectively). SDM levels scored objectively using the OPTION and Decision Analysis System for Oncology instruments ranged from 7 to 39 per cent. Subjective SDM levels as perceived by surgeons and patients ranged from 54 to 93 per cent. Patients experienced a higher level of SDM during consultations than surgeons (93 versus 84 per cent). Twenty-five different SDM-related outcomes were reported. CONCLUSION:At present, SDM in surgery is still in its infancy, although surgeons and patients both think of it favourably. Future studies should evaluate the effect of new interventions to improve SDM during surgical consultations, and its assessment using available standardized and validated metrics.
| S-EPMC6282808 | biostudies-other
Project description:Ethnic/racial minorities are under-represented in blood donor populations in most developed countries. This is of particular concern where minorities differ from a country's majority population in terms of blood or tissue typing, especially where type matching is required for effective management of rare disorders such as sickle-cell disease that require multiple transfusions. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of interventions to increase blood donation among ethnic/racial minority populations in developed countries. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ProQuest on 20 March 2017 with no date restrictions and supplemented this with searches on Google Scholar, blood collection agency websites, reference lists of included studies, and a forward search of citations of included studies. We included intervention studies designed to increase recruitment and/or retention of adult, ethnic/racial minority blood donors in developed countries. The review identified eight studies reported in nine publications. Six were conducted in the USA with African Americans. Four studies reported on multifaceted, community-based interventions; three reported on one-off information and educational video interventions, presented face-to-face, or delivered via post or e-mail. The level of evidence for efficacy was low, and the majority of studies were assessed as having some risk of bias related to one or more methodological issues. All eight studies reported positive outcomes in blood donation and/or intention to donate. Seven trials found that the intervention increased presentation for donation, and three found an increase in the percentage of new donors from the ethnic minority targeted. The review findings demonstrate that it is possible to design and implement effective interventions to motivate individuals from ethnic/racial minority groups to donate blood. One-off interventions may be as effective as multifaceted, community-based interventions. There was insufficient evidence to recommend particular interventions, and future research should empirically assess alternative interventions using robust study designs.
| S-EPMC6501160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Shared decision making (SDM) is important in achieving patient-centered care. SDM tools such as decision aids are intended to inform the patient. When used to assist in decision making between treatments, decision aids have been shown to reduce decisional conflict, increase ease of decision making, and increase modification of previous decisions.The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes related to SDM for seriously ill patients.PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes and SDM in serious illness. Six RCTs were identified and data were extracted on study population, design, and results. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials.Six RCTs tested decision tools in varying serious illnesses. Three studies compared different computerized decision aids against each other and a control. All but one study demonstrated improvement in at least one patient-centered outcome. Computerized decision tools may reduce unnecessary treatment in patients with low disease severity in comparison with informational pamphlets. Additionally, electronic health record (EHR) portals may provide the opportunity to manage care from the home for individuals affected by illness. The quality of decision aids is of great importance. Furthermore, satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decisional conflict. Finally, patients may benefit from computerized decision tools without the need for increased physician involvement.Most computerized decision aids improved at least one patient-centered outcome. All RCTs identified were at a High Risk of Bias or Unclear Risk of Bias. Effort should be made to improve the quality of RCTs testing SDM aids in serious illness.
| S-EPMC5650682 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionWe aimed to systematically evaluate quality of shared decision-making (SDM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).MethodsSearch for CRC screening guidances was from 2010 to November 2021 in EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus and CDSR, and the World Wide Web. Three independent reviewers and an arbitrator rated the quality of each guidance using a SDM quality assessment tool (maximum score: 31). Reviewer agreement was 0.88.ResultsSDM appeared in 41/83 (49.4%) CPGs and 9/19 (47.4%) CSs. None met all the quality criteria, and 51.0% (52/102) failed to meet any quality items. Overall compliance was low (mean 1.63, IQR 0-2). Quality was better in guidances published after 2015 (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p = 0.048) and when the term SDM was specifically reported (mean 4.5, IQR 2.5-4.5 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p < 0.001). CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews showed better SDM quality than consensus (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0, IQR 0-2, p = 0.040).ConclusionSDM quality was suboptimal and mentioned in less than half of the guidances, and recommendations were scarce. Guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based SDM recommendations in guidances to underpin the translation of evidence into practice.
| S-EPMC9786598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making is recognised as an important element of person-centred dementia care.ObjectivesThe aim of this review was to explore how people living with dementia and cognitive impairment can be included in day-to-day decisions about their health and care in extended care settings.DesignA systematic review including primary research relating to shared decision-making, with cognitively impaired adults in (or transferrable to) extended care settings. Databases searched were: CINAHL, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, NICE Evidence, OpenGrey, Autism Data, Google Scholar, Scopus and Medicines Complete (June to October 2016 and updated 2018) for studies published in the last 20 years.ResultsOf the 19 included studies 15 involved people with living dementia, seven in extended care settings. People living with cognitive impairment often have the desire and ability to participate in decision-making about their everyday care, although this is regularly underestimated by their staff and family care partners. Shared decision-making has the potential to improve quality of life for both the person living with dementia and those who support them. How resources to support shared decision-making are implemented in extended care settings is less well understood.ConclusionsEvidence suggests that people living with cognitive impairment value opportunities to be involved in everyday decision-making about their care. How these opportunities are created, understood, supported and sustained in extended care settings remains to be determined.Trial registration numberCRD42016035919.
| S-EPMC6009462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting.DesignSystematic review.Eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM.Information sourcesAcademic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019.ResultsForty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall, Describe treatment options was the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were: Make the decision (75%), Patient preferences (65%), Tailor information (65%), Deliberate (58%), Create choice awareness (55%), and Learn about the patient (53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time, Describe treatment options and Make the decision are the two components which are present in most models in any time period. Create choice awareness stood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time.ConclusionsThis review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration CRD42015019740.
| S-EPMC6937101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite awareness of inequities in health care quality, little is known about strategies that could improve the quality of healthcare for ethnic minority populations. We conducted a systematic literature review and analysis to synthesize the findings of controlled studies evaluating interventions targeted at health care providers to improve health care quality or reduce disparities in care for racial/ethnic minorities.MethodsWe performed electronic and hand searches from 1980 through June 2003 to identify randomized controlled trials or concurrent controlled trials. Reviewers abstracted data from studies to determine study characteristics, results, and quality. We graded the strength of the evidence as excellent, good, fair or poor using predetermined criteria. The main outcome measures were evidence of effectiveness and cost of strategies to improve health care quality or reduce disparities in care for racial/ethnic minorities.ResultsTwenty-seven studies met criteria for review. Almost all (n = 26) took place in the primary care setting, and most (n = 19) focused on improving provision of preventive services. Only two studies were designed specifically to meet the needs of racial/ethnic minority patients. All 10 studies that used a provider reminder system for provision of standardized services (mostly preventive) reported favorable outcomes. The following quality improvement strategies demonstrated favorable results but were used in a small number of studies: bypassing the physician to offer preventive services directly to patients (2 of 2 studies favorable), provider education alone (2 of 2 studies favorable), use of a structured questionnaire to assess adolescent health behaviors (1 of 1 study favorable), and use of remote simultaneous translation (1 of 1 study favorable). Interventions employing more than one main strategy were used in 9 studies with inconsistent results. There were limited data on the costs of these strategies, as only one study reported cost data.ConclusionThere are several promising strategies that may improve health care quality for racial/ethnic minorities, but a lack of studies specifically targeting disease areas and processes of care for which disparities have been previously documented. Further research and funding is needed to evaluate strategies designed to reduce disparities in health care quality for racial/ethnic minorities.
| S-EPMC1525173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTherapeutic decision-making in oncology is a complex process because physicians must consider many forms of medical data and protocols. Another challenge for physicians is to clearly communicate their decision-making process to patients to ensure informed consent. Computer-based decision tools have the potential to play a valuable role in supporting this process.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to investigate the extent to which computer-based decision tools have been successfully adopted in oncology consultations to improve patient-physician joint therapeutic decision-making.MethodsThis review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist and guidelines. A literature search was conducted on February 4, 2021, across the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (from 2005 to January 28, 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (December 2020), MEDLINE (from 1946 to February 4, 2021), Embase (from 1947 to February 4, 2021), Web of Science (from 1900 to 2021), Scopus (from 1969 to 2021), and PubMed (from 1991 to 2021). We used a snowball approach to identify additional studies by searching the reference lists of the studies included for full-text review. Additional supplementary searches of relevant journals and gray literature websites were conducted. The reviewers screened the articles eligible for review for quality and inclusion before data extraction.ResultsThere are relatively few studies looking at the use of computer-based decision tools in oncology consultations. Of the 4431 unique articles obtained from the searches, only 10 (0.22%) satisfied the selection criteria. From the 10 selected studies, 8 computer-based decision tools were identified. Of the 10 studies, 6 (60%) were conducted in the United States. Communication and information-sharing were improved between physicians and patients. However, physicians did not change their habits to take advantage of computer-assisted decision-making tools or the information they provide. On average, the use of these computer-based decision tools added approximately 5 minutes to the total length of consultations. In addition, some physicians felt that the technology increased patients' anxiety.ConclusionsOf the 10 selected studies, 6 (60%) demonstrated positive outcomes, 1 (10%) showed negative results, and 3 (30%) were neutral. Adoption of computer-based decision tools during oncology consultations continues to be low. This review shows that information-sharing and communication between physicians and patients can be improved with the assistance of technology. However, the lack of integration with electronic health records is a barrier. This review provides key requirements for enhancing the chance of success of future computer-based decision tools. However, it does not show the effects of health care policies, regulations, or business administration on physicians' propensity to adopt the technology. Nevertheless, it is important that future research address the influence of these higher-level factors as well.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021226087; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021226087.
| S-EPMC8579220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) sexual and gender minorities (SGM) face unique challenges in mental health and accessing high-quality health care. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators for shared decision making (SDM) between AAPI SGM and providers, especially surrounding mental health. RESEARCH DESIGN:Interviews, focus groups, and surveys. SUBJECTS:AAPI SGM interviewees in Chicago (n=20) and San Francisco (n=20). Two focus groups (n=10) in San Francisco. MEASURES:Participants were asked open-ended questions about their health care experiences and how their identities impacted these encounters. Follow-up probes explored SDM and mental health. Participants were also surveyed about attitudes towards SGM disclosure and preferences about providers. Transcripts were analyzed for themes and a conceptual model was developed. RESULTS:Our conceptual model elucidates the patient, provider, and encounter-centered factors that feed into SDM for AAPI SGM. Some participants shared the stigma of SGM identities and mental health in their AAPI families. Their AAPI and SGM identities were intertwined in affecting mental health. Some providers inappropriately controlled the visibility of the patient's identities, ignoring or overemphasizing them. Participants varied on whether they preferred a provider of the same race, and how prominently their AAPI and/or SGM identities affected SDM. CONCLUSIONS:Providers should understand identity-specific challenges for AAPI SGM to engage in SDM. Providers should self-educate about AAPI and SGM history and intracommunity heterogeneity before the encounter, create a safe environment conducive to patient disclosure of SGM identity, and ask questions about patient priorities for the visit, pronouns, and mental health.
| S-EPMC7135924 | biostudies-literature