Patient decision aids in clinical practice for people with diabetes: a scoping review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
People with diabetes need to make regular choices that influence their long-term morbidity and mortality. Patient decision aids are validated tools and when used collaboratively between healthcare professionals, patients and carers, can help guide value-based discussions which encourage choices that are well informed and personally relevant.Objective
To explore the use and effect of patient decision aids in the management of diabetes.Method
A scoping review design was used. Medline, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between January 1998 and December 2018.Results
Patient decision aids are not commonly or widely used in diabetes management. They offer a suitable adjunct to practice within the domains of healthcare knowledge, active participation, and communication, and shared decision-making between patients and healthcare professionals.Conclusion
Patient decision aids can offer a simple and easy-to-use method to potentially improve diabetes health literacy, through the process of shared decision-making and two-way conversations. However, there are current limitations on using them to positively influence clinical outcomes or long-term changes in self-care behaviors within the management of diabetes. Further research to explore the validity of using patient decision aids long term in these areas is required.
SUBMITTER: Cornelius J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7538483 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient decision aids in clinical practice for people with diabetes: a scoping review.
Cornelius Jodie J Doran Frances F Jefford Elaine E Salehi Nasim N
Diabetology international 20200313 4
<h4>Background</h4>People with diabetes need to make regular choices that influence their long-term morbidity and mortality. Patient decision aids are validated tools and when used collaboratively between healthcare professionals, patients and carers, can help guide value-based discussions which encourage choices that are well informed and personally relevant.<h4>Objective</h4>To explore the use and effect of patient decision aids in the management of diabetes.<h4>Method</h4>A scoping review des ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPatient decision aids are increasingly regarded as important components of clinical practice that enable shared decision making (SDM) and evidence based patient choice. Despite broad acceptance of their value, there remains little evidence of their successful implementation in primary care settings.MethodsHealth care practitioners from five general practice surgeries in northern England participated in focus group sessions around the themes of patient decision aids, patient and practitioner preferences and SDM. Participants included general practitioners (n = 19), practice nurses (n = 5) and auxiliary staff (n = 3). Transcripts were analysed using a framework approach.ResultsWe report a) practitioners' discussion of the current impetus towards sharing decisions and their perspectives on barriers to SDM, and b) the implementation of patient decision aids in practice and impediments such as lack of an evidence base and time available in consultations.ConclusionWe demonstrate two orientations to sharing decisions: practitioner-centred and patient-centred with the former predominating. We argue that it is necessary to rethink the changes required in practice for the implementation of SDM.
| S-EPMC2248564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process whereby patients and clinicians jointly deliberate on the best treatment option that takes into account patients' preferences and values. In breast cancer care, different treatment options have become available to patients in the last decade. Various interventions, including patient decision aids (PtDAs), have been designed to promote SDM in this disease area. This study aimed at investigating the factors that influence the successful adoption and implementation of SDM interventions in real-world healthcare delivery settings.MethodsA scoping review of scientific and grey literature was conducted for the period 2006-2021 to analyse the support for SDM interventions and their adoption in breast cancer clinical practice. The interpretation of findings was based on the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice.ResultsOverall, 19 studies were included for data synthesis, with more than 70% published since 2017. The availability of SDM tools does not automatically translate into their actual use in clinical settings. Factors related to users' co-creation, the clinical team's attitude and knowledge, organisational support and regulatory provisions facilitate the adoption of SDM interventions. However, overlooking aspects such as the re-organisation of care pathways, patient characteristics, and assigning of resources (human, financial, and facilities) can hinder implementation efforts.ConclusionsCompared to the mounting evidence on the efficacy of SDM interventions, knowledge to support their sustained implementation in daily care is still limited, albeit results show an increasing interest in strategies that facilitate their uptake in breast cancer care over time. These findings highlight different strategies that can be used to embed SDM interventions in clinical practice. Future work should investigate which approaches are more effective in light of organisational conditions and external factors, including an evaluation of costs and healthcare system settings.
| S-EPMC10463920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWomen who inherit a pathogenic mutation in Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes 1 or 2 (BRCA1 or BRCA2) are at substantially higher risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer than the average woman. Several cancer risk management strategies exist to address this increased risk. Decisions about which risk management strategies to choose are complex, personal and multifactorial for these women. This scoping review will map evidence relevant to cancer risk management decision making in BRCA mutation carriers without a personal history of cancer. The objective is to identify and describe the features of patient decision aids that have been developed for BRCA mutation carriers. This information may be beneficial for designing new decision aids or adapting existing decision aids to support decision making in this population.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review methodological framework. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist will be used for guidance. Studies on decision aids for women with a BRCA mutation who are unaffected by breast or ovarian cancer will be considered for inclusion. Five electronic databases will be searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science) with no restrictions applied for language or publication date. Studies for inclusion will be selected independently by two review authors. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form. Findings will be presented in tabular form. A narrative description of the evidence will complement the tabulated results.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for conducting this scoping review is not required as this study will involve secondary analysis of existing literature. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.
| S-EPMC8276307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOptimal nurse-to-patient assignment plays a crucial role in healthcare delivery, with direct implications for patient outcomes and the workloads of nursing staff. However, this process is highly intricate, involving a multitude of factors that must be carefully considered. The application of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to support nursing decision-making can have a positive impact not only on patient outcomes but also on nursing efficiency. This scoping review aims to explore the implementation of CDSS in the decision process of optimal nurse-patient assignment (NPA).Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow a stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. It will also be based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews' (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The research primarily aims to identify studies' findings on applying CDSSs in the NPA process. Hence, academic and grey literature articles from six international bibliographic databases (ie, MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global) will be considered, where search strategies will be tailored to each database. The literature search will be conducted in February 2024, and the identified studies will be independently screened by two primary reviewers. After extracting data, the qualitative data will be analysed thematically, and the quantitative data will be subjected to descriptive statistics. The research is scheduled to conclude in December 2024.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected in this study. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.
| S-EPMC10831424 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDecisions about solid organ transplantation are complex. Patient decision aids (PDAs) enhance traditional education, by improving knowledge and supporting patients to align their values with treatments. There are increasing numbers of transplantation PDAs, however, it is unclear whether these are effective. We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the impact of PDA use in transplantation.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases from database inception to October 26, 2020. We included primary studies of solid organ transplantation PDAs defined by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. All comparators and reported outcomes were included. Mean difference in knowledge (before vs. after) was standardized on a 100-point scale. Pooled-effect for PDAs was calculated and compared to the standard of care for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyzed using random effects. Analysis of all other outcomes was limited due to heterogeneity (PROSPERO registration, CRD42020215940).ResultsSeven thousand four hundred and sixty-three studies were screened, 163 underwent full-text review, and 15 studies with 4278 participants were included. Nine studies were RCTs. Seven RCTs assessed knowledge; all demonstrated increased knowledge with PDA use (mean difference, 8.01;95%CI 4.69-11.34, p < .00001). There were many other outcomes, including behavior and acceptability, but these were too heterogenous and infrequently assessed for meaningful synthesis.ConclusionsThis review found that PDAs increase knowledge compared to standard education, though the effect size is small. PDAs are mostly considered acceptable; however, it is difficult to determine whether they improve other decision-making components due to the limited evidence about non-knowledge-based outcomes.
| S-EPMC10909430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNursing care is increasingly supported by computerized information systems and decision support aids. Since the advent of handheld computer devices (HCDs), there has been limited exploration of their use in nursing practice.ObjectiveThe study aimed to understand the professional and clinical impacts of the use of mobile health apps in nursing to assist clinical decision-making in acute care settings. The study also aimed to explore the scope of published research and identify key nomenclature with respect to research in this emerging field within nursing practice.MethodsThis scoping review involved a tripartite search of electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar) using preliminary, broad, and comprehensive search terms. The included studies were hand searched for additional citations. Two researchers independently screened the studies for inclusion and appraised quality using structured critical appraisal tools.ResultsOf the 2309 unique studies screened, 28 (1.21%) were included in the final analyses: randomized controlled trials (n=3, 11%) and quasi-experimental (n=9, 32%), observational (n=10, 36%), mixed methods (n=2, 7%), qualitative descriptive (n=2, 7%), and diagnostic accuracy (n=2, 7%) studies. Studies investigated the impact of HCDs on nursing decisions (n=12, 43%); the effectiveness, safety, and quality of care (n=9, 32%); and HCD usability, uptake, and acceptance (n=14, 50%) and were judged to contain moderate-to-high risk of bias. The terminology used to describe HCDs was heterogenous across studies, comprising 24 unique descriptors and 17 individual concepts that reflected 3 discrete technology platforms ("PDA technology," "Smartphone/tablet technology," and "Health care-specific technology"). Study findings varied, as did the range of decision-making modalities targeted by HCD interventions. Interventions varied according to the level of clinician versus algorithmic judgment: unstructured clinical judgment, structured clinical judgment, and computerized algorithmic judgment.ConclusionsThe extant literature is varied but suggests that HCDs can be used effectively to support aspects of acute nursing care. However, there is a dearth of high-level evidence regarding this phenomenon and studies exploring the degree to which HCD implementation may affect acute nursing care delivery workflow. Additional targeted research using rigorous experimental designs is needed in this emerging field to determine the true potential of HCDs in optimizing acute nursing care.
| S-EPMC9972202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOrganisations that develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) encourage involvement of patients and the publics in their development, however, there are no standard methodologies for doing so. To examine how CPGs report patient and public involvement (PPI), we conducted a scoping review of the evidence addressing the following four questions: (1) who are the patients and publics involved in developing the CPG?; (2) from where and how are the patients and publics recruited?; (3) at what stage in the CPG development process are the patients and publics involved? and (4) how do the patients and publics contribute their views? We also extracted data on the use of PPI reporting checklists by the included studies.DesignWe used the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO, websites of national guideline bodies from the UK, Canada, Australia and the USA, and conducted a forward citation search. No language, date or participant demographics restrictions were applied. Data were synthesised narratively.ResultsWe included 47 studies addressing 1 or more of the 4 questions. All included studies reported who the patient and publics involved (PPI members) were, and several studies reported PPI members from different groups. Patients were reported in 43/47 studies, advocates were reported in 22/47 studies, patients and advocates reported in 17/47 studies, and general public reported in 2/47 studies. Thirty-four studies reported from where the patients and publics were recruited, with patient groups being the most common (20/34). Stage of involvement was reported by 42/47 studies, most commonly at question identification (26/42) and draft review (18/42) stages. Forty-two studies reported how the patients contributed, most commonly via group meetings (18/42) or individual interviews. Ten studies cited or used a reporting checklist to report findings.ConclusionsOur scoping review has revealed knowledge gaps to inform future research in several ways: replication, terminology and inclusion. First, no standard approach to PPI in CPG development could be inferred from the research. Second, inconsistent terminology to describe patients and publics reduces clarity around which patients and publics have been involved in developing CPGs. Finally, the under-representation of research describing PPI in the development of screening, as opposed to treatment, CPGs warrants further attention.
| S-EPMC9528587 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA 2017 systematic review suggested patient engagement in clinical trials has been limited, with little active engagement in trial design or data analysis, interpretation or dissemination. Additionally, there remains limited sex/gender reporting in clinical trial research.ObjectivesThe overall goal of this project was to disseminate sex/gender knowledge and build capacity for patient engagement in clinical trials. Specific objectives were to (1) create capacity and identify opportunities for patient engagement in clinical trials and sponsor- or investigator-led activities (e.g. clinical trial design and conduct); and (2) enhance new/early investigator sex/gender knowledge and skills related to patient-oriented research (POR).MethodsWe used the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Capacity Development Framework and the SPOR Patient Engagement Framework to guide three phases of this project: (1) conduct a scoping review using methods described by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) and the Coordinating Centre at the Institute of Education (Phase 1); (2) host a 1-day POR consultation workshop (Phase 2); and (3) deliver a new/early investigator POR training day (Phase 3). Six electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, the Cochrane Library, and AMED) were searched from 1996 using keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms in accordance with the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and the search criteria in the bibliographic databases. Standard approaches were used to search the grey literature.ResultsA total of 79 studies and over 150 websites were subject to data abstraction by team members, capturing information on sex/gender and SPOR's patient engagement guiding principles of inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, and co-building. Results were presented to 32 key stakeholders at the consultation workshop and input was sought on next steps using nominal group techniques. Based on the plethora of existing POR resources, relevant POR information from the scoping review was collated into two decision aids (patient and investigator) to determine readiness to engage with/as a patient partner in a clinical trial. The decision aids were presented at a POR training day with 88 new/early investigators, clinicians, patient partners and decision makers. The decision aids showed 'good' usability, assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Attendees thought the decision aids were engaging, they increased their understanding of sex/gender, patient engagement and POR, and they would recommend them to others. POR principles and practices were integrated across all phases of the project. Patient partners (1) identified research priorities/search terms; (2) collected/analyzed data; (3) designed the patient partner decision aid; and (4) disseminated the results through presentation.ConclusionOur digital patient partner and investigator decision aids are the first to provide information technology to deliver sex/gender, POR knowledge, and decision support beyond the traditional decision aids used for health screening and/or treatment decisions. The decision aids have the potential to make a significant contribution to Canada's Strategy for POR and support the collaborative efforts of patients and investigators to build a sustainable, accessible and equitable health care system.
| S-EPMC7655585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDecades of effectiveness research has established the benefits of using patient decision aids (PtDAs), yet broad clinical implementation has not yet occurred. Evidence to date is mainly derived from highly controlled settings; if clinicians and health care organizations are expected to embed PtDAs as a means to support person-centered care, we need to better understand what this might look like outside of a research setting.AimThis review was conducted in response to the IPDAS Collaboration's evidence update process, which informs their published standards for PtDA quality and effectiveness. The aim was to develop context-specific program theories that explain why and how PtDAs are successfully implemented in routine healthcare settings.MethodsRapid realist review methodology was used to identify articles that could contribute to theory development. We engaged key experts and stakeholders to identify key sources; this was supplemented by electronic database (Medline and CINAHL), gray literature, and forward/backward search strategies. Initial theories were refined to develop realist context-mechanism-outcome configurations, and these were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsWe developed 8 refined theories, using data from 23 implementation studies (29 articles), to describe the mechanisms by which PtDAs become successfully implemented into routine clinical settings. Recommended implementation strategies derived from the program theory include 1) co-production of PtDA content and processes (or local adaptation), 2) training the entire team, 3) preparing and prompting patients to engage, 4) senior-level buy-in, and 5) measuring to improve.ConclusionsWe recommend key strategies that organizations and individuals intending to embed PtDAs routinely can use as a practical guide. Further work is needed to understand the importance of context in the success of different implementation studies.
| S-EPMC8474331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are intended to optimise patient care by recommending care pathways based on the best available research evidence and practice experience. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare is recommended based on the expectation that it will improve the quality and relevance of outcomes. There is no consensus on what constitutes meaningful and effective PPI in CPG. We will conduct a scoping review to identify and synthesise knowledge in four key areas: who have been the patients and public previously involved in CPG development, how were they recruited, at what stage in the CPG process were they involved and how were they involved. This knowledge will inform a general model of PPI in CPG to inform CPGs development.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a scoping review using the Methodology for Scoping Reviews refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Searches will be conducted in electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO). National standards for developing CPGs from Australia, UK, Canada and the USA will also be identified. A forward and backward citation search will be conducted on the included studies and national standards. Abstracts and full-text studies will be independently screened by two researchers. Extracted data will include study details, type of clinical guideline and the four key areas, which patients and public were involved, how were they recruited, at what stage were they included and how they were involved. Data will be narratively synthesised.Ethics and disseminationAs a scoping review, this study does not require ethics approval. We intend to disseminate the results through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. Furthermore, we will use the findings from our scoping review to inform future research to fill key evidence gaps identified by this review.
| S-EPMC7537460 | biostudies-literature