Shared decision-making in neurosurgery: a scoping review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
In modern neurosurgery, there are often several treatment alternatives, with different risks and benefits. Shared decision-making (SDM) has gained interest during the last decade, although SDM in the neurosurgical field is not widely studied. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to present the current landscape of SDM in neurosurgery.Methods
A literature review was carried out in PubMed and Scopus. We used a search strategy based on keywords used in existing literature on SDM in neurosurgery. Full-text, peer-reviewed articles published from 2000 up to the search date February 16, 2021, with patients 18 years and older were included if articles evaluated SDM in neurosurgery from the patient's perspective.Results
We identified 22 articles whereof 7 covered vestibular schwannomas, 7 covered spinal surgery, and 4 covered gliomas. The other topics were brain metastases, benign brain lesions, Parkinson's disease and evaluation of neurosurgical care. Different methods were used, with majority using forms, questionnaires, or interviews. Effects of SDM interventions were studied in 6 articles; the remaining articles explored factors influencing patients' decisions or discussed SDM aids.Conclusion
SDM is a tool to involve patients in the decision-making process and considers patients' preferences and what the patients find important. This scoping review illustrates the relative lack of SDM in the neurosurgical literature. Even though results indicate potential benefit of SDM, the extent of influence on treatment, outcome, and patient's satisfaction is still unknown. Finally, the use of decision aids may be a meaningful contribution to the SDM process.
SUBMITTER: Corell A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8357744 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Shared decision making (SDM) training is shown to be effective and is increasingly embedded in continuing medical education. There is little evidence, however, about undergraduate medical education for SDM. The aim of this scoping review was to identify existing SDM training embedded in the undergraduate medical curriculum and analyze their impact. METHODS:The authors systematically searched the extant literature for peer reviewed articles, hand searched key journals and reference lists of key articles, and contacted relevant stakeholders as part of a key informant analysis. RESULTS:Included in the qualitative synthesis were 12 studies evaluating 11 SDM courses in medical education across six countries. Most courses integrated SDM training in clinical clerkship and varied in length from one to seven hours. The majority of studies assessed course impact on students' skills in SDM. Most studies suggested that students' skills and confidence in SDM significantly increased post-training, but three studies reported no significant improvement in SDM. Ten courses continue to be taught routinely. CONCLUSION:Overall, studies suggested a positive impact on medical students' skills, confidence, and attitudes regarding SDM. Embedding SDM training in undergraduate medical education may be a practical and effective solution for current barriers to the widespread adoption of SDM.
| S-EPMC6235351 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionPatients with advanced kidney disease (AKD) have to make difficult treatment modality decisions as their disease progresses towards end-stage kidney disease. International guidelines in nephrology suggest shared decision-making (SDM) to help patients make timely treatment modality decisions that align with their values and preferences. However, systematic reviews or scoping reviews on these SDM interventions and on their reported use or outcomes are lacking. This limits the adoption of SDM in clinical practice and hampers further research and development on the subject. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of these SDM interventions by means of a scoping review of the literature. Scoping reviews can provide a broad overview of a topic, identify gaps in the research knowledge base and report on the types of evidence that address and inform practices. This paper presents our study protocol.Methods and analysisThe proposed scoping review will be performed in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. It will cover both qualitative and quantitative scientific literature, as well as the grey literature on SDM interventions for treatment modality decisions in AKD. Only literature written in English will be considered for inclusion. Two independent reviewers will participate in an iterative process of screening the literature, paper selection and data extraction. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion until consensus is reached or after consultation with the research team when needed. Results will be reported with descriptive statistics and diagrammatic or tabular displayed information, accompanied by narrative summaries as explained in the JBI guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the conduct of this study is not required. We will analyse previously collected data for the proposed scoping review. Our results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated through conferences and/or seminars.
| S-EPMC7050317 | 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:ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to determine the size and scope of the published literature on shared decision-making (SDM) using personal health record (PHR) technology and to map the literature in terms of system design and outcomes.Materials and methodsLiterature from Medline, Google Scholar, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Engineering Village, and Web of Science (2005-2015) using the search terms "personal health records," "shared decision making," "patient-provider communication," "decision aid," and "decision support" was included. Articles ( n = 38) addressed the efficacy or effectiveness of PHRs for SDM in engaging patients in self-care and decision-making or ways patients can be supported in SDM via PHR.ResultsAnalysis resulted in an integrated SDM-PHR conceptual framework. An increased interest in SDM via PHR is apparent, with 55% of articles published within last 3 years. Sixty percent of the literature originates from the United States. Twenty-six articles address a particular clinical condition, with 10 focused on diabetes, and one-third offer empirical evidence of patient outcomes. The tethered and standalone PHR architectural types were most studied, while the interconnected PHR type was the focus of more recently published methodological approaches and discussion articles.DiscussionThe study reveals a scarcity of rigorous research on SDM via PHR. Research has focused on one or a few of the SDM elements and not on the intended complete process.ConclusionJust as PHR technology designed on an interconnected architecture has the potential to facilitate SDM, integrating the SDM process into PHR technology has the potential to drive PHR value.
| S-EPMC7651971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeShared decision making (SDM) among the oncology population is highly important due to complex screening and treatment decisions. SDM among patients with cancer, caregivers, and clinicians has gained more attention and importance, yet few articles have systematically examined SDM, specifically in the adult oncology population. This review aims to explore SDM within the oncology literature and help identify major gaps and concerns, with the goal to provide guidance in the development of clear SDM definitions and interventions.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley approach along with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. A systematic search was conducted in four databases that included publications since 2016.ResultsOf the 364 initial articles, eleven publications met the inclusion criteria. We included articles that were original research, cancer related, and focused on shared decision making. Most studies were limited in defining SDM and operationalizing a model of SDM. There were several concerns revealed related to SDM: (1) racial inequality, (2) quality and preference of the patient, caregiver, and clinician communication is important, and (3) the use of a decision-making aid or tool provides value to the patient experience.ConclusionInconsistencies regarding the meaning and operationalization of SDM and inequality of the SDM process among patients from different racial/ethnic backgrounds impact the health and quality of care patients receive. Future studies should clearly and consistently define the meaning of SDM and develop decision aids that incorporate bidirectional, interactive communication between patients, caregivers, and clinicians that account for the diversity of racial, ethnic, and sociocultural backgrounds and preferences.
| S-EPMC9803891 | 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:OBJECTIVES:This review summarises the information available for clinicians counselling older patients with kidney failure about treatment options, focusing on prognosis, quality of life, the lived experiences of treatment and the information needs of older adults. DESIGN:We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology for Scoping Reviews. The final report conforms to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, TRIP and online repositories (for dissertations, guidelines and recommendations from national renal associations). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION:Articles in English studying older adults with advanced kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30?mL/min/1.73?m2); published between January 2000 and August 2018. Articles not addressing older patients separately or those comparing between dialysis modalities were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion and grouped them by topic as per the objectives above. Quantitative data were presented as tables and charts; qualitative themes were identified and described. RESULTS:248 articles were included after screening 15?445 initial results. We summarised prognostic scores and compared dialysis and non-dialytic care. We highlighted potentially modifiable factors affecting quality of life. From reports of the lived experiences, we documented the effects of symptoms, of ageing, the feelings of disempowerment and the need for adaptation. Exploration of information needs suggested that patients want to participate in decision-making and need information, in simple terms, about survival and non-survival outcomes. CONCLUSION:When discussing treatment options, validated prognostic scores are useful. Older patients with multiple comorbidities do not do well with dialysis. The modifiable factors contributing to the low quality of life in this cohort deserve attention. Older patients suffer a high symptom burden and functional deterioration; they have to cope with significant life changes and feelings of disempowerment. They desire greater involvement and more information about illness, symptoms and what to expect with treatment.
| S-EPMC6887047 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe field of rehabilitation has seen a recent rise in technologies to support shared decision-making (SDM). Usability testing during the design process of SDM technologies is needed to optimize adoption and realize potential benefits. There is variability in how usability is defined and measured. Given the complexity of usability, a thorough examination of the methodologies used to measure usability to develop the SDM technologies used in rehabilitation care is needed.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to answer the following research questions: which methods and measures have been used to produce knowledge about the usability of rehabilitation technologies aimed at supporting SDM at the different phases of development and implementation? Which parameters of usability have been measured and reported?MethodsThis review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework. An electronic search was performed in the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from January 2005 up to November 2020. In total, 2 independent reviewers screened all retrieved titles, abstracts, and full texts according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. The International Organization for Standardization framework was used to define the scope of usability (effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction). The characteristics of the studies were outlined in a descriptive summary. Findings were categorized based on usability parameters, technology interventions, and measures of usability.ResultsA total of 38 articles were included. The most common SDM technologies were web-based aids (15/33, 46%). The usability of SDM technologies was assessed during development, preimplementation, or implementation, using 14 different methods. The most frequent methods were questionnaires (24/38, 63%) and semistructured interviews (16/38, 42%). Satisfaction (27/38, 71%) was the most common usability parameter mapped to types of SDM technologies and usability evaluation methods. User-centered design (9/15, 60%) was the most frequently used technology design framework.ConclusionsThe results from this scoping review highlight the importance and the complexity of usability evaluation. Although various methods and measures were shown to be used to evaluate the usability of technologies to support SDM in rehabilitation, very few evaluations used in the included studies were found to adequately span the selected usability domains. This review identified gaps in usability evaluation, as most studies (24/38, 63%) relied solely on questionnaires rather than multiple methods, and most questionnaires simply focused on the usability parameter of satisfaction. The consideration of end users (such as patients and clinicians) is of particular importance for the development of technologies to support SDM, as the process of SDM itself aims to improve patient-centered care and integrate both patient and clinician voices into their rehabilitation care.
| S-EPMC10466154 | 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:BackgroundDegenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a chronic neurological condition estimated to affect 1 in 50 adults. Due to its diverse impact, trajectory and management options, patient-centred care and shared decision making are essential. In this scoping review, we aim to explore whether information needs in DCM are currently being met in available DCM educational resources. This forms part of a larger Myelopathy.org project to promote shared decision making in DCM.MethodsA search was completed encompassing MEDLINE, Embase and grey literature. Resources relevant to DCM were compiled for analysis. Resources were grouped into 5 information types: scientific literature, videos, organisations, health education websites and patient information leaflets. Resources were then further arranged into a hierarchical framework of domains and subdomains, formed through inductive analysis. Frequency statistics were employed to capture relative popularity as a surrogate marker of potential significance.ResultsOf 2674 resources, 150 information resources addressing DCM were identified: 115 scientific literature resources, 28 videos, 5 resources from health organisations and 2 resources from health education websites. Surgical management was the domain with the largest number of resources (66.7%, 100/150). The domain with the second largest number of resources was clinical presentation and natural history (28.7%, 43/150). Most resources (83.3%, 125/150) were designed for professionals. A minority (11.3% 17/150) were written for a lay audience or for a combined audience (3.3%, 5/150).ConclusionEducational resources for DCM are largely directed at professionals and focus on surgical management. This is at odds with the needs of stakeholders in a lifelong condition that is often managed without surgery, highlighting an unmet educational need.
| S-EPMC9119544 | biostudies-literature