Cargando…

Systematic review of shared decision‐making in surgery

BACKGROUND: Multiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision‐making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consult...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Mik, S. M. L., Stubenrouch, F. E., Balm, R., Ubbink, D. T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6282808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30357815
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11009
_version_ 1783379070144217088
author de Mik, S. M. L.
Stubenrouch, F. E.
Balm, R.
Ubbink, D. T.
author_facet de Mik, S. M. L.
Stubenrouch, F. E.
Balm, R.
Ubbink, D. T.
author_sort de Mik, S. M. L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Multiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision‐making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consultations, and the metrics used to measure SDM and SDM‐related outcomes. METHODS: This was a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials that measured SDM during consultations in which surgery was a treatment option. Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two investigators independently. RESULTS: Thirty‐two articles were included. SDM was measured using nine different metrics. Thirty‐six per cent of 13 176 patients and surgeons perceived their consultation as SDM, as opposed to patient‐ or surgeon‐driven. Surgeons more often perceived the decision‐making process as SDM than patients (43·6 versus 29·3 per cent respectively). SDM levels scored objectively using the OPTION and Decision Analysis System for Oncology instruments ranged from 7 to 39 per cent. Subjective SDM levels as perceived by surgeons and patients ranged from 54 to 93 per cent. Patients experienced a higher level of SDM during consultations than surgeons (93 versus 84 per cent). Twenty‐five different SDM‐related outcomes were reported. CONCLUSION: At present, SDM in surgery is still in its infancy, although surgeons and patients both think of it favourably. Future studies should evaluate the effect of new interventions to improve SDM during surgical consultations, and its assessment using available standardized and validated metrics.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6282808
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62828082018-12-11 Systematic review of shared decision‐making in surgery de Mik, S. M. L. Stubenrouch, F. E. Balm, R. Ubbink, D. T. Br J Surg Systematic Reviews BACKGROUND: Multiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision‐making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consultations, and the metrics used to measure SDM and SDM‐related outcomes. METHODS: This was a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials that measured SDM during consultations in which surgery was a treatment option. Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two investigators independently. RESULTS: Thirty‐two articles were included. SDM was measured using nine different metrics. Thirty‐six per cent of 13 176 patients and surgeons perceived their consultation as SDM, as opposed to patient‐ or surgeon‐driven. Surgeons more often perceived the decision‐making process as SDM than patients (43·6 versus 29·3 per cent respectively). SDM levels scored objectively using the OPTION and Decision Analysis System for Oncology instruments ranged from 7 to 39 per cent. Subjective SDM levels as perceived by surgeons and patients ranged from 54 to 93 per cent. Patients experienced a higher level of SDM during consultations than surgeons (93 versus 84 per cent). Twenty‐five different SDM‐related outcomes were reported. CONCLUSION: At present, SDM in surgery is still in its infancy, although surgeons and patients both think of it favourably. Future studies should evaluate the effect of new interventions to improve SDM during surgical consultations, and its assessment using available standardized and validated metrics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2018-10-25 2018-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6282808/ /pubmed/30357815 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11009 Text en © 2018 The Authors. BJS published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Systematic Reviews
de Mik, S. M. L.
Stubenrouch, F. E.
Balm, R.
Ubbink, D. T.
Systematic review of shared decision‐making in surgery
title Systematic review of shared decision‐making in surgery
title_full Systematic review of shared decision‐making in surgery
title_fullStr Systematic review of shared decision‐making in surgery
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of shared decision‐making in surgery
title_short Systematic review of shared decision‐making in surgery
title_sort systematic review of shared decision‐making in surgery
topic Systematic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6282808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30357815
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11009
work_keys_str_mv AT demiksml systematicreviewofshareddecisionmakinginsurgery
AT stubenrouchfe systematicreviewofshareddecisionmakinginsurgery
AT balmr systematicreviewofshareddecisionmakinginsurgery
AT ubbinkdt systematicreviewofshareddecisionmakinginsurgery