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
  • [41] Variation of orthodontic treatment decision-making based on dental model type: A systematic review
    Pacheco-Pereira, Camila
    Canto, Graziela De Luca
    Major, Paul W.
    Flores-Mir, Carlos
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2015, 85 (03) : 501 - 509
  • [42] Handheld Computer Devices to Support Clinical Decision-making in Acute Nursing Practice: Systematic Scoping Review
    Glanville, David
    Hutchinson, Anastasia
    Khaw, Damien
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2023, 25
  • [43] Impact of data visualization on decision-making and its implications for public health practice: a systematic literature review
    Park, Seungeun
    Bekemeier, Betty
    Flaxman, Abraham
    Schultz, Melinda
    INFORMATICS FOR HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE, 2022, 47 (02) : 175 - 193
  • [44] Impact of a multimedia website with patient experiences of multiple sclerosis (PExMS) on immunotherapy decision-making: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial in a mixed-methods design
    Anna Barabasch
    Karin Riemann-Lorenz
    Christopher Kofahl
    Jutta Scheiderbauer
    Desiree Eklund
    Ingo Kleiter
    Jürgen Kasper
    Sascha Köpke
    Susanne Lezius
    Antonia Zapf
    Anne Christin Rahn
    Christoph Heesen
    Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 7
  • [45] Impact of a multimedia website with patient experiences of multiple sclerosis (PExMS) on immunotherapy decision-making: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial in a mixed-methods design
    Barabasch, Anna
    Riemann-Lorenz, Karin
    Kofahl, Christopher
    Scheiderbauer, Jutta
    Eklund, Desiree
    Kleiter, Ingo
    Kasper, Jurgen
    Kopke, Sascha
    Lezius, Susanne
    Zapf, Antonia
    Rahn, Anne Christin
    Heesen, Christoph
    PILOT AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES, 2021, 7 (01)
  • [46] Usability of web-based tools designed for communication and decision-making in dementia: Systematic review and design brief
    Monnet, Fanny
    Craven, Michael P.
    Dupont, Charless
    Van den Block, Lieve
    Pivodic, Lara
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2024, 188
  • [47] On the application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in environmental pollution management: a comprehensive systematic review
    Safarzadeh, Soroush
    Jafari, Hamed
    ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY, 2025,
  • [48] When to stop? Decision-making when children’s cancer treatment is no longer curative: a mixed-method systematic review
    Edith Valdez-Martinez
    Jane Noyes
    Miguel Bedolla
    BMC Pediatrics, 14
  • [49] When to stop? Decision-making when children's cancer treatment is no longer curative: a mixed-method systematic review
    Valdez-Martinez, Edith
    Noyes, Jane
    Bedolla, Miguel
    BMC PEDIATRICS, 2014, 14
  • [50] Integrated decision-making model for community-based rehabilitation service utilisation among persons with severe mental illness in China: protocol for a cross-sectional, mixed-methods study
    Wang, Ruoxi
    Tang, Shangfeng
    Shaw, Ian
    Feng, Zhanchun
    Chen, Zhuo
    Luo, Yuxiong
    Song, Hongxun
    Wu, Tailai
    Fu, Qian
    Fu, Hang
    Huang, Yueying
    Chen, Xiaoyu
    Feng, Da
    BMJ OPEN, 2018, 8 (12):