Felix Wehking, Friedemann Geiger, Fueloep Scheibler, Constanze Stolz-Klingenberg, Ina Monsef, Daniel Litsch, Stefanie Hemmer, Jan-Christoph Lewejohann
{"title":"围绕急诊医学中情境敏感的共享决策实施的文献挑战:范围回顾。","authors":"Felix Wehking, Friedemann Geiger, Fueloep Scheibler, Constanze Stolz-Klingenberg, Ina Monsef, Daniel Litsch, Stefanie Hemmer, Jan-Christoph Lewejohann","doi":"10.2147/OAEM.S516347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Shared decision making is a healthcare method in which health personnel and patients collaboratively evaluate different management options for medical decisions. Despite possible restraints this method encounters in the context of emergency medicine, there is a growing body of evidence. This article critically appraises the current literature and challenges to inform future research efforts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review respects the PRISMA- and PECOS-methodologies. Qualitative- and quantitative studies were included when exposing emergency health personnel or patients to collaborative care for medical decisions with multiple reasonable management options. PubMed, CENTRAL, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, reference lists and research group remarks served as data sources. Three researchers handled title- and abstract screening; one researcher extracted and synthesized data. Basic data on study design, publication date, country of origin, estimates for time consumption and more were extracted through standardized forms for all publications. All outcomes from the randomized clinical trials were included and reported, following the authors' conclusions. This includes effects on consultation times. Through tabular visualization, critical appraisal and author group discussions, challenges in the literature were summarized narratively. Neither risk of bias assessment nor meta-analysis were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3954 hits, 3428 remained for the title- and abstract screening and 67 for data synthesis. Studies predominantly utilized observational designs (n=27), originated from the USA (n=50) and were published between 2011 and 2020 (n=46). The included randomized trials (n=6) report heterogeneous results on patient-reported outcome measures and resource utilization. Patient safety was reported as not affected. In three randomized trials, consultations were prolonged by 2 minutes on average. Through critical appraisal and author group discussions, six annotations on the literature on shared decision making in emergency medicine were stipulated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Research on shared decision making in emergency medicine utilizes different, intertwined terminologies, originates mostly from the USA and focuses on decision aids. The few randomized trials exclude high-risk patients and suggest potential resource-saving effects without compromising patient safety. The formal increase in discussion times appears debatable.</p>","PeriodicalId":45096,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","volume":"17 ","pages":"267-287"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12442812/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenges in the Literature Around Context-Sensitive Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Emergency Medicine: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Felix Wehking, Friedemann Geiger, Fueloep Scheibler, Constanze Stolz-Klingenberg, Ina Monsef, Daniel Litsch, Stefanie Hemmer, Jan-Christoph Lewejohann\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/OAEM.S516347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Shared decision making is a healthcare method in which health personnel and patients collaboratively evaluate different management options for medical decisions. Despite possible restraints this method encounters in the context of emergency medicine, there is a growing body of evidence. This article critically appraises the current literature and challenges to inform future research efforts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review respects the PRISMA- and PECOS-methodologies. Qualitative- and quantitative studies were included when exposing emergency health personnel or patients to collaborative care for medical decisions with multiple reasonable management options. PubMed, CENTRAL, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, reference lists and research group remarks served as data sources. Three researchers handled title- and abstract screening; one researcher extracted and synthesized data. Basic data on study design, publication date, country of origin, estimates for time consumption and more were extracted through standardized forms for all publications. All outcomes from the randomized clinical trials were included and reported, following the authors' conclusions. This includes effects on consultation times. Through tabular visualization, critical appraisal and author group discussions, challenges in the literature were summarized narratively. Neither risk of bias assessment nor meta-analysis were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3954 hits, 3428 remained for the title- and abstract screening and 67 for data synthesis. Studies predominantly utilized observational designs (n=27), originated from the USA (n=50) and were published between 2011 and 2020 (n=46). The included randomized trials (n=6) report heterogeneous results on patient-reported outcome measures and resource utilization. Patient safety was reported as not affected. In three randomized trials, consultations were prolonged by 2 minutes on average. Through critical appraisal and author group discussions, six annotations on the literature on shared decision making in emergency medicine were stipulated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Research on shared decision making in emergency medicine utilizes different, intertwined terminologies, originates mostly from the USA and focuses on decision aids. The few randomized trials exclude high-risk patients and suggest potential resource-saving effects without compromising patient safety. The formal increase in discussion times appears debatable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Access Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"267-287\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12442812/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Access Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S516347\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S516347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:共享决策是一种医疗保健方法,其中卫生人员和患者协同评估不同的医疗决策管理方案。尽管这种方法在急诊医学中可能受到限制,但有越来越多的证据。本文批判性地评价了当前的文献和挑战,以告知未来的研究工作。方法:本综述尊重PRISMA-和pecos -方法。定性和定量研究包括在让急诊卫生人员或患者接受协作护理的医疗决策与多种合理的管理方案。PubMed, CENTRAL, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science,参考文献列表和研究小组评论作为数据来源。三位研究人员负责标题和摘要筛选;一名研究人员提取并合成了数据。通过标准化表格提取所有出版物的研究设计、出版日期、原产国、估计时间消耗等基本数据。根据作者的结论,纳入并报告了随机临床试验的所有结果。这包括对咨询时间的影响。通过表格可视化、批判性评价和作者小组讨论,对文献中的挑战进行了叙述总结。未进行偏倚风险评估和meta分析。结果:在3954个点击中,3428个用于标题和摘要筛选,67个用于数据合成。研究主要采用观察性设计(n=27),来自美国(n=50),发表于2011年至2020年之间(n=46)。纳入的随机试验(n=6)报告了患者报告的结局测量和资源利用的不同结果。据报道,患者安全未受影响。在三个随机试验中,会诊时间平均延长了2分钟。通过批判性评价和作者小组讨论,对急诊医学共享决策的文献进行了六项批注。结论:急诊医学共享决策的研究使用不同且相互交织的术语,主要起源于美国,并侧重于决策辅助。少数随机试验排除了高风险患者,并提示在不损害患者安全的情况下可能节省资源。正式增加讨论时间似乎值得商榷。
Challenges in the Literature Around Context-Sensitive Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Emergency Medicine: A Scoping Review.
Background: Shared decision making is a healthcare method in which health personnel and patients collaboratively evaluate different management options for medical decisions. Despite possible restraints this method encounters in the context of emergency medicine, there is a growing body of evidence. This article critically appraises the current literature and challenges to inform future research efforts.
Methods: This scoping review respects the PRISMA- and PECOS-methodologies. Qualitative- and quantitative studies were included when exposing emergency health personnel or patients to collaborative care for medical decisions with multiple reasonable management options. PubMed, CENTRAL, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, reference lists and research group remarks served as data sources. Three researchers handled title- and abstract screening; one researcher extracted and synthesized data. Basic data on study design, publication date, country of origin, estimates for time consumption and more were extracted through standardized forms for all publications. All outcomes from the randomized clinical trials were included and reported, following the authors' conclusions. This includes effects on consultation times. Through tabular visualization, critical appraisal and author group discussions, challenges in the literature were summarized narratively. Neither risk of bias assessment nor meta-analysis were performed.
Results: Of 3954 hits, 3428 remained for the title- and abstract screening and 67 for data synthesis. Studies predominantly utilized observational designs (n=27), originated from the USA (n=50) and were published between 2011 and 2020 (n=46). The included randomized trials (n=6) report heterogeneous results on patient-reported outcome measures and resource utilization. Patient safety was reported as not affected. In three randomized trials, consultations were prolonged by 2 minutes on average. Through critical appraisal and author group discussions, six annotations on the literature on shared decision making in emergency medicine were stipulated.
Conclusion: Research on shared decision making in emergency medicine utilizes different, intertwined terminologies, originates mostly from the USA and focuses on decision aids. The few randomized trials exclude high-risk patients and suggest potential resource-saving effects without compromising patient safety. The formal increase in discussion times appears debatable.