Determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate informed values-based decision-making: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

被引:1
|
作者
Berger-Hoeger, Birte [1 ]
Lewis, Krystina B. [2 ,3 ]
Cherry, Katherine [4 ]
Finderup, Jeanette [5 ,6 ,7 ]
Gunderson, Janet [8 ,9 ,10 ]
Kaden, Jana [1 ]
Kienlin, Simone [11 ,12 ]
Rahn, Anne C. [13 ]
Sikora, Lindsey [14 ]
Stacey, Dawn [2 ,3 ]
Steckelberg, Anke [15 ]
Zhao, Junqiang [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bremen, Inst Publ Hlth & Nursing Res, Fac Human & Hlth Sci 11, Bremen, Germany
[2] Univ Ottawa, Fac Hlth Sci, Sch Nursing, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[3] Ottawa Hosp Res Inst, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[4] Austin Hlth, Dept Nephrol, Melbourne, Australia
[5] Aarhus Univ Hosp, Dept Renal Med, Aarhus, Denmark
[6] Aarhus Univ Hosp, Dept Clin Med, Aarhus, Denmark
[7] Aarhus Univ & Cent Reg, Res Ctr Patient Involvement, Aarhus, Denmark
[8] Saskatchewan Ctr Patient Oriented Res, Cochrane, AB, Canada
[9] Strategy Patient Oriented Res SPOR Chron Pain Netw, Cochrane, AB, Canada
[10] Canadian Arthrit Patient Alliance, Evidence Alliance, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
[11] UiT Arctic Univ Norway, Fac Hlth Sci, Dept Hlth & Caring Sci, Langnes, Norway
[12] South Eastern Norway Reg Hlth Author, Dept Med & Healthcare, Hamar, Norway
[13] Univ Lubeck, Inst Social Med & Epidemiol, Nursing Res Unit, Lubeck, Germany
[14] Univ Ottawa, Hlth Sci Lib, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[15] Martin Luther Univ Halle Wittenberg, Inst Hlth & Nursing Sci, Fac Med, Halle, Saale, Germany
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2023年 / 13卷 / 11期
关键词
Decision Making; Patient Participation; Systematic Review; BARRIERS; TRIALS;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071478
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
IntroductionDecision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients' involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane' Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane' Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022338299.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Application of Decision-Making Methods in Smart City Projects: A Systematic Literature Review
    Giang Tran Thi Hoang
    Dupont, Laurent
    Camargo, Mauricio
    SMART CITIES, 2019, 2 (03): : 433 - 452
  • [22] Protocol: What works to increase the use of evidence for policy decision-making: A systematic review
    Nduku, Promise
    Ategeka, John
    Madonsela, Andile
    Mdlalose, Tanya
    Stevenson, Jennifer
    Shisler, Shannon
    Pande, Suvarna
    Mahlanza-Langer, Laurenz
    CAMPBELL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2024, 20 (04)
  • [23] Public preferences for engagement in Health Technology Assessment decision-making: protocol of a mixed methods study
    Wortley, Sally
    Tong, Allison
    Lancsar, Emily
    Salkeld, Glenn
    Howard, Kirsten
    BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2015, 15
  • [24] Improving Data-Based Decision-Making in Early Childhood Services: A Systematic Review Informed by the Capability Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behavior
    Beatson, Ruth
    Macmillan, Caitlin M.
    Sherker, Shauna
    Hilton, Olivia
    Goldfeld, Sharon
    Molloy, Carly
    CHILD & YOUTH SERVICES, 2025,
  • [25] Public preferences for engagement in Health Technology Assessment decision-making: protocol of a mixed methods study
    Sally Wortley
    Allison Tong
    Emily Lancsar
    Glenn Salkeld
    Kirsten Howard
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 15
  • [26] Opportunities for addressing gaps in primary care shared decision-making with technology: a mixed-methods needs assessment
    Misra, Anjali J.
    Ong, Shawn Y.
    Gokhale, Arjun
    Khan, Sameer
    Melnick, Edward R.
    JAMIA OPEN, 2019, 2 (04) : 447 - 455
  • [27] Legal decision-making in child sexual abuse investigations: A mixed-methods study of factors that influence prosecution
    Duron, Jacquelynn F.
    CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT, 2018, 79 : 302 - 314
  • [28] A mixed methods thematic review: Health-related decision-making by the older person
    King, Lindy
    Harrington, Ann
    Linedale, Ecushla
    Tanner, Elizabeth
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2018, 27 (7-8) : E1327 - E1343
  • [29] Treatment decision-making in ductal carcinoma in situ: A mixed methods systematic review of women's experiences and information needs
    Rutherford, Claudia
    Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
    Butow, Phyllis
    Wu, Jenny Liang
    King, Madeleine T.
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2017, 100 (09) : 1654 - 1666
  • [30] Interventions to Facilitate Shared Decision-Making Using Decision Aids with Coronary Heart Disease Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Zheng, Haoyang
    Zhang, Duo
    Xiang, Wei
    Wu, Yuxi
    Peng, Zesheng
    Gan, Yong
    Chen, Shengcai
    REVIEWS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, 2023, 24 (08)