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] Mixed-methods systematic review: Childbearing women's views, experiences, and decision-making related to epidural analgesia in labour
    Borrelli, Sara
    Evans, Kerry
    Pallotti, Phoebe
    Evans, Catrin
    Eldridge, Jeanette
    Spiby, Helen
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2020, 76 (12) : 3273 - 3292
  • [22] Abortion decision-making process trajectories and determinants in low- and middle-income countries: A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis
    Lokubal, Paul
    Corcuera, Ines
    Balil, Jessica Macias
    Frischer, Sandrena Ruth
    Kayemba, Christine Nalwadda
    Kurinczuk, Jennifer J.
    Opondo, Charles
    Nair, Manisha
    ECLINICALMEDICINE, 2022, 54
  • [23] Factors influencing the implementation of shared decision-making in breast cancer care: protocol for a mixed-methods study
    Bravo, Paulina
    Dois, Angelina
    Villarroel, Luis
    Gonzalez-Agueero, Marcela
    Fernandez-Gonzalez, Loreto
    Sanchez, Cesar
    Martinez, Alejandra
    Turen, Valentina
    Quezada, Constanza
    Guasalaga, Maria Elisabeth
    Haerter, Martin
    BMJ OPEN, 2023, 13 (07):
  • [24] Decision-making about mastectomy among Chinese women with breast cancer: a mixed-methods study protocol
    Liu, Jing
    Hunter, Sharyn
    Guo, Dongmei
    Lin, Qin
    Zhu, Jiemin
    Lee, Regina Lai-Tong
    Chan, Sally Wai-Chi
    BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (04):
  • [25] Values-Based Decision Making in Pain Management: A Narrative Review of the State of the Science
    Bernhofer, Esther I.
    PAIN MANAGEMENT NURSING, 2017, 18 (02) : 71 - 71
  • [26] Healthy persuasion: a values-based messaging approach to leisure air travel decision-making
    Higham, James
    Veisten, Knut
    Landa Mata, Iratxe
    Farstad, Eivind
    Hopkins, Debbie
    Bian, Yi
    JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM, 2024,
  • [27] Effect of genetics clinical decision support tools on health-care providers' decision making: a mixed-methods systematic review
    Sebastian, Agnes
    Carroll, June C.
    Oldfield, Leslie E.
    Mighton, Chloe
    Shickh, Salma
    Uleryk, Elizabeth
    Bombard, Yvonne
    GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2021, 23 (04) : 593 - 602
  • [28] Understanding decision-making processes of prospective adoptive parents: A mixed-methods study
    Willis, Bethany
    Hrapczynski, Katie
    Fortner, Cheryl
    FAMILY RELATIONS, 2024, 73 (05) : 2961 - 2980
  • [29] Perspective taking and decision-making in educational game play: A mixed-methods study
    Hilliard, Lacey J.
    Buckingham, Mary H.
    Geldhof, G. John
    Gansert, Patricia
    Stack, Caroline
    Gelgoot, Erin S.
    Bers, Marina U.
    Lerner, Richard M.
    APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 2018, 22 (01) : 1 - 13
  • [30] What are the decision-making preferences of patients in vascular surgery? A mixed-methods study
    Santema, T. B. Katrien
    Stoffer, E. Anniek
    Kunneman, Marleen
    Koelemay, Mark J. W.
    Ubbink, Dirk T.
    BMJ OPEN, 2017, 7 (02):