Dataset Information

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Background: It is not clear whether clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are adequately promoting shared decision making (SDM).

Objective: To evaluate the recommendations about SDM in CPGs and CSs concerning breast cancer (BC) treatment.

Search strategy: Following protocol registration (Prospero no.: CRD42018106643), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2010 to December 2019.

Inclusion criteria: CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were selected whether published in a journal or in an online document.

Data extraction and synthesis: A 31-item SDM quality assessment tool was developed and used to extract data in duplicate.

Main results: There were 167 relevant CPGs (139) and CSs (28); SDM was reported in only 40% of the studies. SDM was reported more often in recent publications after 2015 (42/101 (41.6 %) vs 46/66 (69.7 %), P = .0003) but less often in medical journal publications (44/101 (43.5 %) vs 17/66 (25.7 %), P = .009). In CPGs and CSs with SDM, only 8/66 (12%) met one-fifth (6 of 31) of the quality items; only 14/66 (8%) provided clear and precise SDM recommendations.

Discussion and conclusions: SDM descriptions and recommendations in CPGs and CSs concerning BC treatment need improvement. SDM was more frequently reported in CPGs and CSs in recent years, but surprisingly it was less often covered in medical journals, a feature that needs attention.

SUBMITTER: Maes-Carballo M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7696137 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review.

Maes-Carballo Marta M Muñoz-Núñez Isabel I Martín-Díaz Manuel M Mignini Luciano L Bueno-Cavanillas Aurora A Khan Khalid Saeed KS

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20200803 5

<h4>Background</h4>It is not clear whether clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are adequately promoting shared decision making (SDM).<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the recommendations about SDM in CPGs and CSs concerning breast cancer (BC) treatment.<h4>Search strategy</h4>Following protocol registration (Prospero no.: CRD42018106643), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through systematic search of bibliographic databases (M ...[more]

PMID: 32748514

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile shared decision making (SDM) and adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are important, some believe they are incompatible. This study explored the mutual influence between physicians' intention to engage in SDM and their intention to follow CPGs.MethodsEmbedded within a clustered randomized trial to assess the impact of training physicians in SDM about using antibiotics to treat acute respiratory tract infections, this study evaluated physicians' intentions to both engage in SDM and follow CPGs. A self-administered questionnaire based on the theory of planned behavior evaluated both behavioral intentions and their respective determinants (attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control) at study entry and exit. We used path analysis to explore the relationships between the intentions. We conducted statistical analyses using the maximum likelihood method and the variance-covariance matrix. Goodness of fit indices encompassed the chi-square statistic, the comparative fit index and the root mean square error of approximation.ResultsWe analyzed 244 responses at entry and 236 at exit. In the control group, at entry we observed that physicians' intention to engage in SDM (r?=?0, t?=?0.03) did not affect their intention to follow CPGs; however, their intention to follow CPGs (r?=?-0.31 t?=?-2.82) did negatively influence their intention to engage in SDM. At exit, neither behavioral intention influenced the other. In the experimental group, at entry neither behavioral intention influenced the other; at exit, the intention to engage in SDM still did not influence the intention to use CPGs, although the intention to follow CPGs (r?=?-0.15 t?=?-2.02) slightly negatively influenced the intention to engage in SDM, but this was not clinically significant.ConclusionPhysicians' intention to engage in SDM does not affect their intention to adopt CPGs even after SDM training. Physicians' intention to adopt CPGs had no clinically significant influence on intention to engage in SDM.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01116076.

Project description:ImportanceShared decision-making (SDM) is a key component of the provision of ethical care, but prior reviews have indicated that clinical practice guidelines seldom promote or facilitate SDM. It is currently unknown whether these findings extend to contemporary cardiovascular guidelines.ObjectiveTo identify and characterize integration of SDM in contemporary cardiovascular guideline recommendations using a systematic classification system.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study assessed the latest guidelines or subsequent updates that included pharmacotherapy recommendations and were published between January 2012 and December 2022 by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Data were analyzed from February 21 to July 21, 2023.Main outcomes and measuresAll pharmacotherapy recommendations were identified within each guideline. Recommendations that incorporated SDM were rated according to a systematic rating framework to evaluate the quality of SDM incorporation based on directness (range, 1-3; assessing whether SDM was incorporated directly and impartially into the recommendation's text, with 1 indicating direct and impartial incorporation of SDM into the recommendation's text) and facilitation (range, A-D; assessing whether decision aids or quantified benefits and harms were provided, with A indicating that a decision aid quantifying benefits and harms was provided). The proportion of recommendations incorporating SDM was also analyzed according to guideline society and category (eg, general cardiology, heart failure).ResultsAnalyses included 65 guideline documents, and 33 documents (51%) incorporated SDM either in a general statement or within specific recommendations. Of 7499 recommendations, 2655 (35%) recommendations addressed pharmacotherapy, and of these, 170 (6%) incorporated SDM. By category, general cardiology guidelines contained the highest proportion of pharmacotherapy recommendations incorporating SDM (86 of 865 recommendations [10%]), whereas heart failure and myocardial disease contained the least (9 of 315 recommendations [3%]). The proportion of pharmacotherapy recommendations incorporating SDM was comparable across societies (ACC: 75 of 978 recommendations [8%]; CCS: 29 of 333 recommendations [9%]; ESC: 67 of 1344 recommendations [5%]), with no trend for change over time. Only 5 of 170 SDM recommendations (3%) were classified as grade 1A (impartial recommendations for SDM supported by a decision aid), whereas 114 of 170 recommendations (67%) were grade 3D (SDM mentioned only in supporting text and without any tools or information to facilitate SDM).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study across guidelines published by 3 major cardiovascular societies over the last decade, 51% of guidelines mentioned the importance of SDM, yet only 6% of recommendations incorporated SDM in any form, and fewer adequately facilitated SDM.

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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies.MethodsIn a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397.ResultsWe included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated.ConclusionsDue to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.

Dataset Information

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review.

Publications

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets