Shared Decision Making Among Racially and/or Ethnically Diverse Populations in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators.

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Yohualli Anaya, Diana Do, Leslie Christensen, Sarina Schrager
{"title":"Shared Decision Making Among Racially and/or Ethnically Diverse Populations in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators.","authors":"Yohualli Anaya, Diana Do, Leslie Christensen, Sarina Schrager","doi":"10.1370/afm.240087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Disparities in the use of shared decision making (SDM) affect minoritized patients. We sought to identify the barriers and facilitators to SDM among diverse patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review in adherence to the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodologic framework. Our search of 4 databases-PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and PsycINFO-used controlled vocabulary and key word terms related to SDM in the care of racially and/or ethnically diverse adults in the primary care setting. We included peer-reviewed studies conducted in the United States or Canada that evaluated the process of decision making and that had populations in which more than 50% of patients were from racial and/or ethnic minorities. Unique records were uploaded to a screening platform for independent review by 2 team members. We used grounded theory to guide our inductive approach and completed a thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 39 studies met all inclusion criteria. We identified 5 overarching themes: (1) factors regarding the decision-making process during the clinical encounter, (2) clinician practice characteristics, (3) trust in the clinician/health care system, (4) cultural congruence between clinician and patient, and (5) extrinsic factors affecting the decision-making process. Barriers of SDM included cultural and language discordance; prejudice, bias, and stereotypes; mistrust; and clinician time constraints. Facilitators of SDM included cultural concordance between clinician and patient; clinician language competence; and clear, honest, and humanistic communication with patients having the ability to ask questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified a set of potentially modifiable factors that facilitate or impede SDM. Our findings can help inform strategies and interventions to improve SDM among racially and/or ethnically diverse patient populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50973,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Family Medicine","volume":"23 2","pages":"108-116"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11936357/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.240087","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Disparities in the use of shared decision making (SDM) affect minoritized patients. We sought to identify the barriers and facilitators to SDM among diverse patients.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review in adherence to the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodologic framework. Our search of 4 databases-PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and PsycINFO-used controlled vocabulary and key word terms related to SDM in the care of racially and/or ethnically diverse adults in the primary care setting. We included peer-reviewed studies conducted in the United States or Canada that evaluated the process of decision making and that had populations in which more than 50% of patients were from racial and/or ethnic minorities. Unique records were uploaded to a screening platform for independent review by 2 team members. We used grounded theory to guide our inductive approach and completed a thematic analysis.

Results: A total of 39 studies met all inclusion criteria. We identified 5 overarching themes: (1) factors regarding the decision-making process during the clinical encounter, (2) clinician practice characteristics, (3) trust in the clinician/health care system, (4) cultural congruence between clinician and patient, and (5) extrinsic factors affecting the decision-making process. Barriers of SDM included cultural and language discordance; prejudice, bias, and stereotypes; mistrust; and clinician time constraints. Facilitators of SDM included cultural concordance between clinician and patient; clinician language competence; and clear, honest, and humanistic communication with patients having the ability to ask questions.

Conclusions: We identified a set of potentially modifiable factors that facilitate or impede SDM. Our findings can help inform strategies and interventions to improve SDM among racially and/or ethnically diverse patient populations.

初级保健中种族和/或民族多样化人群的共同决策:障碍和促进因素的范围审查。
目的:在使用共同决策(SDM)方面存在的差异影响着少数群体患者。我们试图找出在不同患者中进行 SDM 的障碍和促进因素:我们按照乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)的方法框架进行了范围界定研究。我们检索了 4 个数据库--PubMed、Scopus、CINAHL Plus(含全文)和 PsycINFO--使用了与在初级医疗环境中为不同种族和/或民族的成年人提供 SDM 相关的控制词汇和关键词。我们收录了在美国或加拿大进行的同行评议研究,这些研究对决策过程进行了评估,其研究人群中有 50% 以上的患者来自少数种族和/或民族。独特的记录被上传到筛选平台,由两名团队成员进行独立审查。我们使用基础理论指导归纳方法,并完成了主题分析:共有 39 项研究符合所有纳入标准。我们确定了 5 大主题:(1) 临床接触中有关决策过程的因素;(2) 临床医师的执业特点;(3) 对临床医师/医疗保健系统的信任;(4) 临床医师与患者之间的文化一致性;(5) 影响决策过程的外在因素。SDM 的障碍包括文化和语言不协调;偏见、成见和刻板印象;不信任;以及临床医生的时间限制。SDM 的促进因素包括临床医生和患者之间的文化和谐;临床医生的语言能力;清晰、诚实和人性化的沟通,患者有能力提出问题:我们发现了一系列促进或阻碍 SDM 的潜在可调整因素。我们的研究结果有助于为改善不同种族和/或民族患者群体的 SDM 制定策略和干预措施。
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
Annals of Family Medicine
Annals of Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
142
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annals of Family Medicine is a peer-reviewed research journal to meet the needs of scientists, practitioners, policymakers, and the patients and communities they serve.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信