Decision aids for promoting shared decision-making: A review of systematic reviews

IF 2.1 3区医学 Q2 NURSING

Nursing & Health Sciences Pub Date : 2024-01-11 DOI:10.1111/nhs.13071

Myonghwa Park, Thao Thi-Thu Doan, Jihye Jung, Thi-Thanh-Tinh Giap, Jinju Kim

{"title":"Decision aids for promoting shared decision-making: A review of systematic reviews","authors":"Myonghwa Park, Thao Thi-Thu Doan, Jihye Jung, Thi-Thanh-Tinh Giap, Jinju Kim","doi":"10.1111/nhs.13071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the context of shared decision-making (SDM), experts have advocated the use of validated decision aids (DAs) as valuable tools for facilitating SDM in various healthcare scenarios. This comprehensive review attempts to analyze a vast corpus of DA research by performing thorough searches across four prominent databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science). Independent reviewers selected relevant reviews, extracted data, and assessed review quality using the AMSTAR II tool. A total of 34 systematic reviews were identified and evaluated in this review, encompassing a wide range of outcomes associated with using DAs. These outcomes include patient knowledge, patient involvement in SDM, decision conflict, decision regret, satisfaction, and adherence. In addition, DAs positively affect healthcare provider outcomes by increasing satisfaction, reducing decision conflicts, and lengthening clinical consultations. This review highlights the need for additional research in specific contexts such as long-term care, mental health, and reproductive health to better understand the benefits and challenges of implementing DAs in these settings. Such research can contribute to the improvement of SDM practices and patient-centered care.","PeriodicalId":49730,"journal":{"name":"Nursing & Health Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing & Health Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.13071","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the context of shared decision-making (SDM), experts have advocated the use of validated decision aids (DAs) as valuable tools for facilitating SDM in various healthcare scenarios. This comprehensive review attempts to analyze a vast corpus of DA research by performing thorough searches across four prominent databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science). Independent reviewers selected relevant reviews, extracted data, and assessed review quality using the AMSTAR II tool. A total of 34 systematic reviews were identified and evaluated in this review, encompassing a wide range of outcomes associated with using DAs. These outcomes include patient knowledge, patient involvement in SDM, decision conflict, decision regret, satisfaction, and adherence. In addition, DAs positively affect healthcare provider outcomes by increasing satisfaction, reducing decision conflicts, and lengthening clinical consultations. This review highlights the need for additional research in specific contexts such as long-term care, mental health, and reproductive health to better understand the benefits and challenges of implementing DAs in these settings. Such research can contribute to the improvement of SDM practices and patient-centered care.

查看原文本刊更多论文

促进共同决策的决策辅助工具：系统回顾综述

在共同决策（SDM）的背景下，专家们提倡使用经过验证的决策辅助工具（DAs），将其作为在各种医疗场景中促进 SDM 的重要工具。本综合综述试图通过对四个著名数据库（PubMed、CINAHL、Embase 和 Web of Science）进行全面检索，分析大量的决策辅助工具研究。独立审稿人选择相关综述、提取数据，并使用 AMSTAR II 工具评估综述质量。本综述共确定并评估了 34 篇系统性综述，涵盖了与使用 DAs 相关的各种结果。这些结果包括患者知识、患者参与 SDM、决策冲突、决策遗憾、满意度和依从性。此外，DAs 还通过提高满意度、减少决策冲突和延长临床会诊时间对医疗服务提供者的结果产生积极影响。本综述强调了在长期护理、心理健康和生殖健康等特定环境中开展更多研究的必要性，以更好地了解在这些环境中实施DAs的益处和挑战。此类研究有助于改善 SDM 实践和以患者为中心的护理。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Nursing & Health Sciences 医学-护理

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

3.70%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： NHS has a multidisciplinary focus and broad scope and a particular focus on the translation of research into clinical practice, inter-disciplinary and multidisciplinary work, primary health care, health promotion, health education, management of communicable and non-communicable diseases, implementation of technological innovations and inclusive multicultural approaches to health services and care.