Alex Waddell, Alyse Lennox, Gerri Spassova, Peter Bragge
{"title":"Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in hospitals from policy to practice: a systematic review.","authors":"Alex Waddell, Alyse Lennox, Gerri Spassova, Peter Bragge","doi":"10.1186/s13012-021-01142-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Involving patients in their healthcare using shared decision-making (SDM) is promoted through policy and research, yet its implementation in routine practice remains slow. Research into SDM has stemmed from primary and secondary care contexts, and research into the implementation of SDM in tertiary care settings has not been systematically reviewed. Furthermore, perspectives on SDM beyond those of patients and their treating clinicians may add insights into the implementation of SDM. This systematic review aimed to review literature exploring barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital settings from multiple stakeholder perspectives.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed qualitative studies with the primary aim of identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital (tertiary care) settings. Studies from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health service administrators, and decision makers, government policy makers, and other stakeholders (for example researchers) were eligible for inclusion. Reported qualitative results were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify behavioural barriers and facilitators to SDM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Titles and abstracts of 8724 articles were screened and 520 were reviewed in full text. Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 12) were conducted in the last four years; only four reported perspectives in addition to the patient-clinician dyad. In mapping results to the TDF, the dominant themes were Environmental Context and Resources, Social/Professional Role and Identity, Knowledge and Skills, and Beliefs about Capabilities. A wide range of barriers and facilitators across individual, organisational, and system levels were reported. Barriers specific to the hospital setting included noisy and busy ward environments and a lack of private spaces in which to conduct SDM conversations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SDM implementation research in hospital settings appears to be a young field. Future research should build on studies examining perspectives beyond the clinician-patient dyad and further consider the role of organisational- and system-level factors. Organisations wishing to implement SDM in hospital settings should also consider factors specific to tertiary care settings in addition to addressing their organisational and individual SDM needs.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The protocol for the review is registered on the Open Science Framework and can be found at https://osf.io/da645/ , DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DA645 .</p>","PeriodicalId":417097,"journal":{"name":"Implementation Science : IS","volume":" ","pages":"74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8325317/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation Science : IS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01142-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Involving patients in their healthcare using shared decision-making (SDM) is promoted through policy and research, yet its implementation in routine practice remains slow. Research into SDM has stemmed from primary and secondary care contexts, and research into the implementation of SDM in tertiary care settings has not been systematically reviewed. Furthermore, perspectives on SDM beyond those of patients and their treating clinicians may add insights into the implementation of SDM. This systematic review aimed to review literature exploring barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital settings from multiple stakeholder perspectives.
Methods: The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed qualitative studies with the primary aim of identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital (tertiary care) settings. Studies from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health service administrators, and decision makers, government policy makers, and other stakeholders (for example researchers) were eligible for inclusion. Reported qualitative results were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify behavioural barriers and facilitators to SDM.
Results: Titles and abstracts of 8724 articles were screened and 520 were reviewed in full text. Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 12) were conducted in the last four years; only four reported perspectives in addition to the patient-clinician dyad. In mapping results to the TDF, the dominant themes were Environmental Context and Resources, Social/Professional Role and Identity, Knowledge and Skills, and Beliefs about Capabilities. A wide range of barriers and facilitators across individual, organisational, and system levels were reported. Barriers specific to the hospital setting included noisy and busy ward environments and a lack of private spaces in which to conduct SDM conversations.
Conclusions: SDM implementation research in hospital settings appears to be a young field. Future research should build on studies examining perspectives beyond the clinician-patient dyad and further consider the role of organisational- and system-level factors. Organisations wishing to implement SDM in hospital settings should also consider factors specific to tertiary care settings in addition to addressing their organisational and individual SDM needs.
Trial registration: The protocol for the review is registered on the Open Science Framework and can be found at https://osf.io/da645/ , DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DA645 .
背景:利用共享决策(SDM)让患者参与其医疗保健是通过政策和研究来促进的,但其在日常实践中的实施仍然缓慢。对SDM的研究源于初级和二级保健环境,对三级保健环境中SDM实施的研究尚未进行系统审查。此外,超越患者及其治疗临床医生对SDM的看法可能会增加对SDM实施的见解。本系统综述旨在回顾从多个利益相关者角度探讨在医院环境中实施SDM的障碍和促进因素的文献。方法:搜索策略侧重于同行评议的定性研究,主要目的是确定在医院(三级保健)环境中实施SDM的障碍和促进因素。从患者、临床医生、卫生服务管理人员、决策者、政府决策者和其他利益相关者(例如研究人员)的角度进行的研究符合纳入条件。报告的定性结果被映射到理论领域框架(TDF),以确定SDM的行为障碍和促进因素。结果:共筛选了8724篇文章的标题和摘要,并对520篇文章进行了全文审阅。14篇文章符合纳入标准。大多数研究(n = 12)是在最近四年进行的;除了病人和医生的关系外,只有四种观点被报道。在将结果映射到TDF时,主要主题是环境背景和资源、社会/专业角色和身份、知识和技能以及对能力的信念。报告了跨越个人、组织和系统级别的各种障碍和促进因素。医院环境特有的障碍包括嘈杂和繁忙的病房环境,以及缺乏进行SDM对话的私人空间。结论:SDM实施研究在医院设置似乎是一个年轻的领域。未来的研究应该建立在研究超越临床-患者二元关系的视角上,并进一步考虑组织和系统层面因素的作用。希望在医院环境中实施SDM的组织除了解决其组织和个人SDM需求外,还应考虑三级保健环境的具体因素。试验注册:审查的方案已在开放科学框架上注册,可在https://osf.io/da645/, DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DA645上找到。