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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |