TY - JOUR
T1 - More work needed on decision analysis for shared decision-making
T2 - A scoping review
AU - Humphries, Brittany
AU - León-García, Montserrat
AU - Quispe, Ena Niño de Guzman
AU - Canelo-Aybar, Carlos
AU - Valli, Claudia
AU - Pacheco-Barrios, Kevin
AU - Agarwal, Arnav
AU - Mirabi, Susan
AU - Eckman, Mark H.
AU - Guyatt, Gordon
AU - Bates, Shannon M.
AU - Xie, Feng
AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo
N1 - Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/1
Y1 - 2022/1
N2 - Objective: To explore and characterize published evidence on the ways decision analysis has been used to inform shared decision-making. Study Design and Setting: For this scoping review, we searched five bibliographic databases (from inception until February 2021), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, a thesis database and websites of relevant interest groups. Studies were eligible if they evaluated the application of decision analysis in a shared decision-making encounter. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies for inclusion, extracted study information using a data extraction form developed by the research team and assessed risk of bias for all studies with an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Data were narratively synthesized. Results: We identified 27 studies that varied greatly with regard to their patient population, design, content and delivery. A range of outcomes were evaluated to explore the effectiveness and acceptability of decision analytic interventions, with little information about the implementation process. Most studies found that decision analysis was broadly beneficial. Conclusion: Despite the compelling rationale on the potential for decision analysis to support shared decision-making, rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these interventions' effectiveness, while qualitative studies should seek to understand their potential implementation.
AB - Objective: To explore and characterize published evidence on the ways decision analysis has been used to inform shared decision-making. Study Design and Setting: For this scoping review, we searched five bibliographic databases (from inception until February 2021), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, a thesis database and websites of relevant interest groups. Studies were eligible if they evaluated the application of decision analysis in a shared decision-making encounter. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies for inclusion, extracted study information using a data extraction form developed by the research team and assessed risk of bias for all studies with an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Data were narratively synthesized. Results: We identified 27 studies that varied greatly with regard to their patient population, design, content and delivery. A range of outcomes were evaluated to explore the effectiveness and acceptability of decision analytic interventions, with little information about the implementation process. Most studies found that decision analysis was broadly beneficial. Conclusion: Despite the compelling rationale on the potential for decision analysis to support shared decision-making, rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these interventions' effectiveness, while qualitative studies should seek to understand their potential implementation.
KW - Shared decision-making
KW - clinical decision-making
KW - decision analysis
KW - patient preferences
KW - review article
KW - scoping review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118475440&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.001
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.001
M3 - Artículo de revisión
C2 - 34628018
AN - SCOPUS:85118475440
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 141
SP - 106
EP - 120
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -