Dataset Information

A systematic review of decision support needs of parents making child health decisions.

ABSTRACT: To identify the decision support needs of parents attempting to make an informed health decision on behalf of a child.The first step towards implementing patient decision support is to assess patients' information and decision-making needs.A systematic search of key bibliographic databases for decision support studies was performed in 2005. Reference lists of relevant review articles and key authors were searched. Three relevant journals were hand searched.Non-intervention studies containing data on decision support needs of parents making child health decisions.Data were extracted on study characteristics, decision focus and decision support needs. Studies were quality assessed using a pre-defined set of criteria. Data synthesis used the UK Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre approach.One-hundred and forty nine studies were included across various child health decisions, settings and study designs. Thematic analysis of decision support needs indicated three key issues: (i) information (including suggestions about the content, delivery, source, timing); (ii) talking to others (including concerns about pressure from others); and (iii) feeling a sense of control over the process that could be influenced by emotionally charged decisions, the consultation process, and structural or service barriers. These were consistent across decision type, study design and whether or not the study focused on informed decision making.

SUBMITTER: Jackson C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5060453 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of decision support needs of parents making child health decisions.

Jackson Cath C Cheater Francine M FM Reid Innes I

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20080901 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To identify the decision support needs of parents attempting to make an informed health decision on behalf of a child.<h4>Context</h4>The first step towards implementing patient decision support is to assess patients' information and decision-making needs.<h4>Search strategy</h4>A systematic search of key bibliographic databases for decision support studies was performed in 2005. Reference lists of relevant review articles and key authors were searched. Three relevant journals ...[more]

PMID: 18816320

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Shared decision making (SDM) is recognized as a person-centered approach to improving health care quality and outcomes. Few digital interventions to improve SDM have been tested in child and adolescent mental health (CAMH) settings. One such intervention is Power Up, a mobile phone app for young people (YP), which has shown some evidence of promise that YP who received Power Up reported greater levels of SDM. However, even though parents play a critical role in CAMH care and treatment, they often feel excluded from services. OBJECTIVE:This protocol is for a pilot trial to determine the feasibility of a large-scale randomized trial to develop and evaluate a Web app called Power Up for Parents (PUfP) to support parents and promote involvement in CAMH decisions. METHODS:A 2-stage process, consisting of the development stage and pilot-testing stage of the initial PUfP prototype, will be conducted. At the development stage, a qualitative study with parents and clinicians will be conducted. The interviews will aim to capture the experience of making CAMH decisions, preferences for involvement in SDM, and determine situations within which PUfP can be useful. At the pilot-testing stage, up to 90 parents and their clinicians will be invited to participate in the testing of the prototype. Parents will be randomly allocated to receive the intervention or be part of the control group. This study design will allow us to assess the acceptability and usefulness of PUfP in addition to examining the feasibility of a prospective randomized trial. Clinicians' perceptions of the prototype and how it has influenced parents' involvement in SDM will also be examined. RESULTS:Recruitment began in January 2019 and is scheduled to last for 10 months. Interviews and baseline data collection are currently in progress. To date, 11 CAMH sites have been recruited to take part in the study. It is anticipated that data collection will be completed by October 2019. CONCLUSIONS:The lack of parents' involvement in CAMH care and treatment can lead to higher rates of dropout from care and lower adherence to therapeutic interventions. There are significant benefits to be gained globally if digital SDM interventions are adopted by parents and shown to be successful in CAMH settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN39238984; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN39238984. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/14571.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing patient engagement in healthcare has become a health policy priority. However, there has been concern that promoting supported shared decision-making could increase health inequalities.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on disadvantaged groups and health inequalities.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.Data sourcesCINAHL, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Open SIGLE, PsycINFO and Web of Knowledge were searched from inception until June 2012.Study eligibility criteriaWe included all studies, without language restriction, that met the following two criteria: (1) assess the effect of shared decision-making interventions on disadvantaged groups and/or health inequalities, (2) include at least 50% of people from disadvantaged groups, except if a separate analysis was conducted for this group.ResultsWe included 19 studies and pooled 10 in a meta-analysis. The meta-analyses showed a moderate positive effect of shared decision-making interventions on disadvantaged patients. The narrative synthesis suggested that, overall, SDM interventions increased knowledge, informed choice, participation in decision-making, decision self-efficacy, preference for collaborative decision making and reduced decisional conflict among disadvantaged patients. Further, 7 out of 19 studies compared the intervention's effect between high and low literacy groups. Overall, SDM interventions seemed to benefit disadvantaged groups (e.g. lower literacy) more than those with higher literacy, education and socioeconomic status. Interventions that were tailored to disadvantaged groups' needs appeared most effective.ConclusionResults indicate that shared decision-making interventions significantly improve outcomes for disadvantaged patients. According to the narrative synthesis, SDM interventions may be more beneficial to disadvantaged groups than higher literacy/socioeconomic status patients. However, given the small sample sizes and variety in the intervention types, study design and quality, those findings should be interpreted with caution.

Project description:BackgroundWith rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development.MethodsA systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004-2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed.ResultsA total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs.ConclusionThere are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods.

Project description:ObjectivesCognitive and other biases can influence the quality of healthcare decision making. While substantial research has explored how biases can lead to diagnostic or other errors in medicine, fewer studies have examined how they impact the decision making of other healthcare professionals. This scoping review aimed to identify and synthesise a broad range of research investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in five electronic databases. Title, abstract and full text screening was undertaken in duplicate, using prespecified eligibility criteria designed to identify studies attempting to demonstrate the presence of bias when allied healthcare professionals make decisions. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, focussing on the type of allied health profession, type of decision, and type of bias reported within the included studies.ResultsThe search strategy identified 149 studies. Of these, 119 studies came from the field of psychology, with substantially fewer from social work, physical and occupational therapy, speech pathology, audiology and genetic counselling. Diagnostic and assessment decisions were the most common decision types, with fewer studies assessing treatment, prognostic or other clinical decisions. Studies investigated the presence of over 30 cognitive, affective and other decision making biases, including stereotyping biases, anchoring, and confirmation bias. Overall, 77% of the studies reported at least one outcome that represented the presence of a bias.ConclusionThis scoping review provides an overview of studies investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases. Biases have the potential to seriously impact the quality, consistency and accuracy of decision making in allied health practice. The findings highlight a need for further research particularly in professional disciplines outside of psychology, using methods that reflect real life healthcare decision making.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of decision support needs of parents making child health decisions.

Publications

A systematic review of decision support needs of parents making child health decisions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets