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] Individual Differences in Rater Decision-Making Style: An Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study
    Baker, Beverly Anne
    LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT QUARTERLY, 2012, 9 (03) : 225 - 248
  • [32] Patient decision-making and regret in pilonidal sinus surgery: a mixed-methods study
    Strong, Emily
    Callaghan, Tia
    Beal, Erin
    Moffatt, Christine
    Wickramasekera, Nyantara
    Brown, Steven
    Lee, Matthew J.
    Winton, Catherine
    Hind, Daniel
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2021, 23 (06) : 1487 - 1498
  • [33] Patient experience, satisfaction and shared decision-making in colorectal cancer screening: protocol of the mixed-methods study CyDESA
    Selva, Anna
    Lopez, Pilar
    Puig, Teresa
    Macia, Francesc
    Selva, Clara
    Alvarez-Perez, Yolanda
    Terraza, Rebeca
    Buron, Andrea
    Machlab, Salvador Tarek
    Pericay, Carles
    Sola, Ivan
    Tora, Nuria
    Rodriguez, Vanesa
    Barrufet, Cristina
    Aymar, Anna
    Bare, Marisa
    BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (05):
  • [34] Informed decision-making about germline testing among Veterans with advanced prostate cancer (APC): A mixed-methods study
    Kwon, Daniel H.
    McPhaul, Marissa
    Sumra, Saffanat
    Ursem, Carling Jade
    Walker, Evan Justin
    Scheuner, Maren Theresa
    Wang, Sunny
    Aggarwal, Rahul Raj
    Huang, Franklin W.
    Belkora, Jeffrey
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2024, 42 (16)
  • [35] Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study
    Bojke, Laura
    Soares, Marta
    Claxton, Karl
    Colson, Abigail
    Fox, Aimee
    Jackson, Christopher
    Jankovic, Dina
    Morton, Alec
    Sharples, Linda
    Taylor, Andrea
    HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2021, 25 (37) : 1 - +
  • [36] A framework for production of systematic review based briefings to support evidence-informed decision-making
    Chambers D.
    Wilson P.
    Systematic Reviews, 1 (1)
  • [37] Protocol for systematic review: patient decision aids for total hip and knee arthroplasty decision-making
    Lissa Pacheco-Brousseau
    Marylène Charette
    Dawn Stacey
    Stéphane Poitras
    Systematic Reviews, 10
  • [38] Protocol for systematic review: patient decision aids for total hip and knee arthroplasty decision-making
    Pacheco-Brousseau, Lissa
    Charette, Marylene
    Stacey, Dawn
    Poitras, Stephane
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2021, 10 (01)
  • [39] Co-designing a hybrid closed loop values-based shared decision-making AID
    Guy, M.
    Boulos, N.
    Williams, A.
    Summerton, J.
    HORMONE RESEARCH IN PAEDIATRICS, 2024, 97 : 337 - 337
  • [40] Interventions to facilitate shared decision-making using decision aids with patients in Primary Health Care A systematic review
    Coronado-Vazquez, Valle
    Canet-Fajas, Carlota
    Teresa Delgado-Marroquin, Maria
    Magallon-Botaya, Rosa
    Romero-Martin, Macarena
    Gomez-Salgado, Juan
    MEDICINE, 2020, 99 (32) : E21389