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
  • [31] Strategies to facilitate shared decision-making about pediatric oncology clinical trial enrollment: A systematic review
    Robertson, Eden G.
    Wakefield, Claire E.
    Signorelli, Christina
    Cohn, Richard J.
    Patenaude, Andrea
    Foster, Claire
    Pettit, Tristan
    Fardell, Joanna E.
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2018, 101 (07) : 1157 - 1174
  • [32] Orientation and Decision-Making for Soccer Based on Sports Analytics and AI: A Systematic Review
    Pu, Zhiqiang
    Pan, Yi
    Wang, Shijie
    Liu, Boyin
    Chen, Min
    Ma, Hao
    Cui, Yixiong
    IEEE-CAA JOURNAL OF AUTOMATICA SINICA, 2024, 11 (01) : 37 - 57
  • [33] Informed consent in medical decision-making in commercial gestational surrogacy: a mixed methods study in New Delhi, India
    Tanderup, Malene
    Reddy, Sunita
    Patel, Tulsi
    Nielsen, Birgitte Bruun
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2015, 94 (05) : 465 - 472
  • [34] Altered value-based decision-making in anorexia nervosa: A systematic review
    Brown, Carina S.
    Nunez, Audrey
    Wierenga, Christina E.
    NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS, 2024, 167
  • [35] Development and evaluation of a healthcare decision-making intervention for African American parent-adult daughter dementia dyads: a mixed-methods study protocol
    Johnson, Kalisha Bonds
    Lyons, Karen S.
    Epps, Fayron
    Daniel, Gaea
    Monin, Joan K.
    Powell, Wizdom
    Hepburn, Ken
    BMJ OPEN, 2025, 15 (03):
  • [36] Patient influence on general practice service improvement decision making: a participatory research mixed-methods intervention study
    Drinkwater, Jessica
    MacFarlane, Anne
    Twiddy, Maureen
    Meads, David
    Chadwick, Ruth H.
    Donnelly, Ailsa
    Gleeson, Phil
    Hayward, Nick
    Kelly, Michael
    Mir, Robina
    Prestwich, Graham
    Rathfelder, Martin
    Foy, Robbie
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2024, 74 (745) : E552 - E559
  • [37] Informed Consent and Decision-Making About Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research
    Gordon, Elisa J.
    Daud, Amna
    Caicedo, Juan Carlos
    Cameron, Kenzie A.
    Jay, Colleen
    Fryer, Jonathan
    Beauvais, Nicole
    Skaro, Anton
    Baker, Talia
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2011, 92 (12) : 1285 - 1296
  • [38] Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Address Water Allocation Problems: A Systematic Review
    Gebre, Sintayehu Legesse
    Cattrysse, Dirk
    Van Orshoven, Jos
    WATER, 2021, 13 (02)
  • [39] Real-time monitoring and feedback to improve shared decision-making for surgery (the ALPACA Study): protocol for a mixed-methods study to inform co-development of an inclusive intervention
    Hoffmann, Christin
    Avery, Kerry N. L.
    Macefield, Rhiannon C.
    Snelgrove, Val
    Blazeby, Jane M.
    Hopkins, Della
    Hickey, Shireen
    Cabral, Christie
    Hall, Jennifer
    Gibbison, Ben
    Rooshenas, Leila
    Williams, Adam
    Aning, Jonathan
    Bekker, Hilary L.
    McNair, Angus G. K.
    BMJ OPEN, 2024, 14 (01):
  • [40] Evidence-based practice: how to perform and use systematic reviews for clinical decision-making
    Kranke, Peter
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2010, 27 (09) : 763 - 772