Decision Coaching to Prepare Patients for Making Health Decisions: A Systematic Review of Decision Coaching in Trials of Patient Decision Aids

被引:118
|
作者
Stacey, Dawn [1 ,2 ]
Kryworuchko, Jennifer [3 ]
Bennett, Carol [2 ]
Murray, Mary Ann [2 ]
Mullan, Sarah [2 ]
Legare, France [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ottawa, Sch Nursing, Fac Hlth Sci, Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5, Canada
[2] Ottawa Hosp, Res Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
[4] Ctr Hosp Univ Quebec, Res Ctr, Quebec City, PQ, Canada
关键词
health literacy; decision aids; prostate cancer; colorectal cancer; cancer prevention; breast cancer/mammography; oncology; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; PRENATAL-DIAGNOSIS; SUPPORT PATIENTS; CARE; INTERVENTION; KNOWLEDGE; FRAMEWORK; EDUCATION; CRITERIA; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X12443311
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. Decision coaching is individualized, nondirective facilitation of patient preparation for shared decision making. Purpose. To explore characteristics and effectiveness of decision coaching evaluated within trials of patient decision aids (PtDAs) for health decisions. Data Sources. A subanalysis of trials included in the 2011 Cochrane Review of PtDAs. Study Selection. Eligible trials allowed the effectiveness of decision coaching to be compared with another intervention and/or usual care. Data Extraction. Two reviewers independently screened 86 trials, extracted data, and appraised quality. Data Synthesis. Ten trials were eligible. Decision coaching was provided by genetic counselors, nurses, pharmacists, physicians, psychologists, or health educators. Coaching compared with usual care (n = 1 trial) improved knowledge. Coaching plus PtDA compared with usual care (n = 4) improved knowledge and participation in decision making without reported dissatisfaction. Coaching compared with PtDA alone (n = 4) increased values-choice agreement and improved satisfaction with the decision-making process without any difference in knowledge or participation in decision making. Coaching plus PtDA compared with PtDA alone (n = 4) had no difference in knowledge, values-choice agreement, participation in decision making, or satisfaction with the process. Decision coaching plus PtDA was more cost-effective compared with PtDA alone or usual care (n = 1). Limitations. Methodological quality, number of trials, and description of decision coaching. Conclusions. Compared with usual care, decision coaching improved knowledge. However, the improvement in knowledge was similar when coaching was compared with PtDA alone. Outcomes for other comparisons are more variable, some trials showing positive effects and other trials reporting no difference. Given the small number of trials and variability in results, further research is required to determine the effectiveness of decision coaching.
引用
收藏
页码:E22 / E33
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Randomized trial of community health worker-led decision coaching to promote shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening among Black male patients and their providers
    Makarov, Danil V.
    Feuer, Zachary
    Ciprut, Shannon
    Lopez, Natalia Martinez
    Fagerlin, Angela
    Shedlin, Michele
    Gold, Heather T.
    Li, Huilin
    Lynch, Gina
    Warren, Rueben
    Ubel, Peter
    Ravenell, Joseph E.
    TRIALS, 2021, 22 (01)
  • [32] Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools
    Boivin, Antoine
    L'Esperance, Audrey
    Gauvin, Francois-Pierre
    Dumez, Vincent
    Macaulay, Ann C.
    Lehoux, Pascale
    Abelson, Julia
    HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2018, 21 (06) : 1075 - 1084
  • [33] Decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision making in chronic illnesses: a systematic review
    Thomas H. Wieringa
    Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez
    Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla
    Maartje de Wit
    Oscar J. Ponce
    Manuel F. Sanchez-Herrera
    Nataly R. Espinoza
    Yaara Zisman-Ilani
    Marleen Kunneman
    Linda J. Schoonmade
    Victor M. Montori
    Frank J. Snoek
    Systematic Reviews, 8
  • [34] Decision Aids for Shared Decision-making in Uro-oncology: A Systematic Review
    Gruene, Britta
    Kriegmair, Maximilian C.
    Lenhart, Maximilian
    Michel, Maurice S.
    Huber, Johannes
    Koether, Anja K.
    Buedenbender, Bjorn
    Alpers, Georg W.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2022, 8 (03): : 851 - 869
  • [35] Decision Aids for Decision Making about Locally Advance Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Maes-Carballo, Marta
    Martin-Diaz, Manuel
    Garcia-Garcia, Manuel
    Reinoso-Hermida, Ayla
    Mignini, Luciano
    Teixeira-Arcaya, Rebeca Patricia
    Khan, Khalid Saeed
    Bueno-Cavanillas, Aurora
    CANCER INVESTIGATION, 2023, 41 (03) : 292 - 304
  • [36] Shared Decision-Making and Patient Decision Aids Is It Time?
    Sepucha, Karen R.
    CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES, 2012, 5 (03): : 247 - 248
  • [37] A Framework for Decision-Making Within Strength and Conditioning Coaching
    Till, Kevin
    Muir, Bob
    Abraham, Andrew
    Piggott, Dave
    Tee, Jason
    STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING JOURNAL, 2019, 41 (01) : 14 - 26
  • [38] Enhancing Patient Decision-Making in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Decision Aid Efficacy
    Graziano, Francis D.
    White, Donovan R.
    Plotsker, Ethan L.
    Shammas, Ronnie L.
    Smith-Montes, Elizabeth
    Nelson, Jonas A.
    Stern, Carrie S.
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2024,
  • [39] For which decisions is Shared Decision Making considered appropriate?-A systematic review
    van der Horst, Dorinde E. M.
    Garvelink, Mirjam M.
    Bos, Willem Jan W.
    Stiggelbout, Anne M.
    Pieterse, Arwen H.
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2023, 106 : 3 - 16
  • [40] Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review
    Scalia, Peter
    Barr, Paul J.
    O'Neill, Ciaran
    Crealey, Grainne E.
    Bagley, Pamela J.
    Blunt, Heather B.
    Elwyn, Glyn
    BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (11):