Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Herrera DJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10417450 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.
Herrera Deborah Jael DJ van de Veerdonk Wessel W Berhe Neamin M NM Talboom Sarah S van Loo Marlon M Alejos Andrea Ruiz AR Ferrari Allegra A Van Hal Guido G
Cancers 20230729 15
This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Re ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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:BackgroundShared decision making (SDM) preceding lung cancer screening is important for populations that are underrepresented in lung cancer screening trials. Current evidence-based guidelines; however, do not address personal risk and outcomes in underrepresented populations. This study compared two SDM decision aids (Option Grids and Shouldiscreen.com) for SDM efficacy, decision regret and knowledge.MethodsWe conducted a prospective trial of lung cancer screening patients (N = 237) randomized to SDM with Option Grids or Shouldiscreen.com. To evaluate the SDM process after lung cancer screening, patients answered two questionnaires: CollaboRATE and Decision Regret. Patients also completed a questionnaire to test their knowledge of lung cancer screening.ResultsPatients were predominantly African American (61.6%), though multiple races, varying education levels and equal genders were represented. Patients in both Option Grids and Shouldiscreen.com groups reported favorable SDM experiences (P = 0.60) and equivalent knowledge about lung cancer screening (P = 0.43). Patients using Shouldiscreen.com had less knowledge regarding the potential complications of subsequent testing (P = 0.02). Shouldiscreen.com patients had increased regret regarding their decision to pursue screening (P = 0.02).ConclusionsOption Grids and Shouldiscreen.com both facilitated a meaningful SDM process. However, Option Grids patients experienced decreased decision regret and enhanced knowledge of the potential complications of screening.
| S-EPMC8458019 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDecisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients.Research questionWhat kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools?Study design and methodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening.ResultsAfter screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients' knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as "high" by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies).InterpretationEvidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools.Clinical trial registrationPROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814.
| S-EPMC7783863 | biostudies-literature
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:BackgroundThe online nature of decision aids (DAs) and related e-tools supporting women's decision-making regarding breast cancer screening (BCS) through mammography may facilitate broader access, making them a valuable addition to BCS programs.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the scientific evidence on the impacts of these e-tools and to provide a comprehensive assessment of the factors associated with their increased utility and efficacy.MethodsWe followed the 2020 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and conducted a search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases from August 2010 to April 2023. We included studies reporting on populations at average risk of breast cancer, which utilized DAs or related e-tools, and assessed women's participation in BCS by mammography or other key cognitive determinants of decision-making as primary or secondary outcomes. We conducted meta-analyses on the identified randomized controlled trials, which were assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We further explored intermediate and high heterogeneity between studies to enhance the validity of our results.ResultsIn total, 22 different e-tools were identified across 31 papers. The degree of tailoring in the e-tools, specifically whether the tool was fully tailored or featured with tailoring, was the most influential factor in women's decision-making regarding BCS. Compared with control groups, tailored e-tools significantly increased women's long-term participation in BCS (risk ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.23, P<.001, I2=0%). Tailored-to-breast-cancer-risk e-tools increased women's level of worry (mean difference 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.48, P<.001, I2=0%). E-tools also improved women's adequate knowledge of BCS, with features-with-tailoring e-tools designed and tested with the general population being more effective than tailored e-tools designed for or tested with non-BCS participants (χ21=5.1, P=.02). Features-with-tailoring e-tools increased both the rate of women who intended not to undergo BCS (risk ratio 1.88, 95% CI 1.43-2.48, P<.001, I2=0%) and the rate of women who had made an informed choice regarding their intention to undergo BCS (risk ratio 1.60, 95% CI 1.09-2.33, P=.02, I2=91%). Additionally, these tools decreased the proportion of women with decision conflict (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.91, P=.002, I2=0%). Shared decision-making was not formally evaluated. This review is limited by small sample sizes, including only a few studies in the meta-analysis, some with a high risk of bias, and high heterogeneity between the studies and e-tools.ConclusionsFeatures-with-tailoring e-tools could potentially negatively impact BCS programs by fostering negative intentions and attitudes toward BCS participation. Conversely, tailored e-tools may increase women's participation in BCS but, when tailored to risk, they may elevate their levels of worry. To maximize the effectiveness of e-tools while minimizing potential negative impacts, we advocate for an "on-demand" layered approach to their design.
| S-EPMC11822326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient involvement in decision-making plays a prominent role in improving the quality of healthcare. Despite this, shared decision-making is not routinely implemented. However, electronic assessment tools that capture patients' history, symptoms, opinions and values prior to their medical appointment are used by healthcare professionals during patient consultations to facilitate shared decision-making.ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of electronic assessment tools to improve the shared decision-making process.MethodA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Published literature was searched on MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to identify potentially relevant studies. Data were extracted and analysed narratively.ResultsSeventeen articles, representing 4004 participants, were included in this review. The main findings were significant improvement in patient-provider communication and provider management of patient condition in the intervention group compared to the control group. In contrast, patient-provider satisfaction and time efficiency were assessed by relatively few included studies, and the effects of these outcomes were inconclusive.ConclusionThis review found that communication and healthcare professional's management of a patient's condition improves because of the use of electronic questionnaires. This is encouraging because the process of shared decision-making is reliant on high-quality communication between healthcare professionals and patients.ImplicationsWe found that this intervention is especially important for people with chronic diseases, as they need to establish a long-term relationship with their healthcare provider and agree to a treatment plan that aligns with their values. More rigorous research with validated instruments is required.
| S-EPMC10170559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMultiple 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThirty-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.ConclusionAt 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-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient-centered care promotes the involvement of patients in decision-making related to their health care. The adoption and implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) into routine care are constrained by several obstacles, including technical and time constraints, clinician and patient attitudes and perceptions, and processes that exist outside the standardized clinical workflow.ObjectiveWe aimed to understand the integration and implementation characteristics of reported SDM interventions integrated into an electronic health record (EHR) system.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley with guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Eligibility criteria included original research and reviews focusing on SDM situations in a real-world clinical setting and EHR integration of SDM tools and processes. We excluded retrospective studies, conference abstracts, simulation studies, user design studies, opinion pieces, and editorials. To identify eligible studies, we searched the following databases on January 11, 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library including CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. We systematically categorized descriptive data and key findings in a tabular format using predetermined data charting forms. Results were summarized using tables and associated narratives related to the review questions.ResultsOf the 2153 studies, 18 (0.84%) were included in the final review. There was a high degree of variation across studies, including SDM definitions, standardized measures, technical integration, and implementation strategies. SDM tools that targeted established health care processes promoted their use. Integrating SDM templates and tools into an EHR appeared to improve the targeted outcomes of most (17/18, 94%) studies. Most SDM interventions were designed for clinicians. Patient-specific goals and values were included in 56% (10/18) of studies. The 2 most common study outcome measures were SDM-related measures and SDM tool use.ConclusionsUnderstanding how to integrate SDM tools directly into a clinician's workflow within the EHR is a logical approach to promoting SDM into routine clinical practice. This review contributes to the literature by illuminating features of SDM tools that have been integrated into an EHR system. Standardization of SDM tools and processes, including the use of patient decision aids, is needed for consistency across SDM studies. The implementation approaches for SDM applications showed varying levels of planning and effort to promote SDM intervention awareness. Targeting accepted and established clinical processes may enhance the adoption and use of SDM tools. Future studies designed as randomized controlled trials are needed to expand the quality of the evidence base. This includes the study of integration methods into EHR systems as well as implementation methods and strategies deployed to operationalize the uptake of the SDM-integrated tools. Emphasizing patients' goals and values is another key area for future studies.
| S-EPMC11890150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) in mental healthcare has received increased attention as a process to reinforce person-centered care. With the rapid development of digital health technology, researchers investigate how digital interventions may be utilized to support SDM. Despite the promise of digital interventions to support SDM, the effect of these in mental healthcare has not been evaluated before. Thus, this paper aims to assess the effect of SDM interventions complimented by digital technology in mental healthcare. Objective: The objective of this review was to systematically examine the effectiveness of digital SDM interventions on patient outcomes as investigated in randomized trials. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on digital SDM interventions for people with a mental health condition. We searched for relevant studies in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search strategy included terms relating to SDM, digital systems, mental health conditions, and study type. The primary outcome was patient activation or indices of the same (e.g., empowerment and self-efficacy), adherence to treatment, hospital admissions, severity of symptoms, and level of functioning. Secondary outcomes were satisfaction, decisional conflict, working alliance, usage, and adherence of medicine; and adverse events were defined as harms or side effects. Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria with outcome data from 2,400 participants. Digital SDM interventions had a moderate positive effect as compared with a control condition on patient activation [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.56, CI: 0.10, 1.01, p = 0.02], a small effect on general symptoms (SMD = -0.17, CI: -0.31, -0.03, p = 0.02), and working alliance (SMD = 0.21, CI: 0.02, 0.41, p = 0.03) and for improving decisional conflict (SMD = -0.37, CI: -0.70, -0.05, p = 0.02). No effect was found on self-efficacy, other types of mental health symptoms, adverse events, or patient satisfaction. A total of 39 outcomes were narratively synthesized with results either favoring the intervention group or showing no significant differences between groups. Studies were generally assessed to have unclear or high risk of bias, and outcomes had a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) rating of low- or very low-quality evidence. Conclusions: Digital interventions to support SDM may be a promising tool in mental healthcare; but with the limited quality of research, we have little confidence in the estimates of effect. More quality research is needed to further assess the effectiveness of digital means to support SDM but also to determine which digital intervention features are most effective to support SDM. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020148132.
| S-EPMC8450495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe effect of shared decision-making (SDM) and the extent of its use in interventions to improve cardiovascular risk remain unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which SDM is used in interventions aimed to enhance the management of cardiovascular risk factors and to explore the association of SDM with decisional outcomes, cardiovascular risk factors, and health behaviors.Data sourcesFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, a literature search was conducted in the Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for articles published from inception to June 24, 2022, without language restrictions.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SDM-based interventions with standard of care for cardiovascular risk factor management were included.Data extraction and synthesisThe systematic search resulted in 9365 references. Duplicates were removed, and 2 independent reviewers screened the trials (title, abstract, and full text) and extracted data. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.Main outcomes and measuresDecisional outcomes, cardiovascular risk factor outcomes, and health behavioral outcomes.ResultsThis review included 57 RCTs with 88 578 patients and 1341 clinicians. A total of 59 articles were included, as 2 RCTs were reported twice. Nearly half of the studies (29 [49.2%]) tested interventions that targeted both patients and clinicians, and an equal number (29 [49.2%]) exclusively focused on patients. More than half (32 [54.2%]) focused on diabetes management, and one-quarter focused on multiple cardiovascular risk factors (14 [23.7%]). Most studies (35 [59.3%]) assessed cardiovascular risk factors and health behaviors as well as decisional outcomes. The quality of studies reviewed was low to fair. The SDM intervention was associated with a decrease of 4.21 points (95% CI, -8.21 to -0.21) in Decisional Conflict Scale scores (9 trials; I2 = 85.6%) and a decrease of 0.20% (95% CI, -0.39% to -0.01%) in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (18 trials; I2 = 84.2%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis of the current state of research on SDM interventions for cardiovascular risk management, there was a slight reduction in decisional conflict and an improvement in HbA1c levels with substantial heterogeneity. High-quality studies are needed to inform the use of SDM to improve cardiovascular risk management.
| S-EPMC10966415 | biostudies-literature