Cargando…

Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES: To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrenc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bomhof-Roordink, Hanna, Gärtner, Fania R, Stiggelbout, Anne M, Pieterse, Arwen H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6937101/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31852700
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763
_version_ 1783483824139665408
author Bomhof-Roordink, Hanna
Gärtner, Fania R
Stiggelbout, Anne M
Pieterse, Arwen H
author_facet Bomhof-Roordink, Hanna
Gärtner, Fania R
Stiggelbout, Anne M
Pieterse, Arwen H
author_sort Bomhof-Roordink, Hanna
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting. DESIGN: Systematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM. INFORMATION SOURCES: Academic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019. RESULTS: Forty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall, Describe treatment options was the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were: Make the decision (75%), Patient preferences (65%), Tailor information (65%), Deliberate (58%), Create choice awareness (55%), and Learn about the patient (53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time, Describe treatment options and Make the decision are the two components which are present in most models in any time period. Create choice awareness stood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42015019740
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6937101
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69371012020-01-09 Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review Bomhof-Roordink, Hanna Gärtner, Fania R Stiggelbout, Anne M Pieterse, Arwen H BMJ Open Communication OBJECTIVES: To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting. DESIGN: Systematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM. INFORMATION SOURCES: Academic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019. RESULTS: Forty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall, Describe treatment options was the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were: Make the decision (75%), Patient preferences (65%), Tailor information (65%), Deliberate (58%), Create choice awareness (55%), and Learn about the patient (53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time, Describe treatment options and Make the decision are the two components which are present in most models in any time period. Create choice awareness stood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42015019740 BMJ Publishing Group 2019-12-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6937101/ /pubmed/31852700 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Communication
Bomhof-Roordink, Hanna
Gärtner, Fania R
Stiggelbout, Anne M
Pieterse, Arwen H
Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review
title Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review
title_full Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review
title_fullStr Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review
title_short Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review
title_sort key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review
topic Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6937101/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31852700
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763
work_keys_str_mv AT bomhofroordinkhanna keycomponentsofshareddecisionmakingmodelsasystematicreview
AT gartnerfaniar keycomponentsofshareddecisionmakingmodelsasystematicreview
AT stiggelboutannem keycomponentsofshareddecisionmakingmodelsasystematicreview
AT pietersearwenh keycomponentsofshareddecisionmakingmodelsasystematicreview