Cargando…

Shared decision making in surgery: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) has been increasingly implemented to improve health‐care outcomes. Despite the mixed efficacy of SDM to provide better patient‐guided care, its use in surgery has not been studied. The aim of this study was to systematically review SDM application in surgery....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Niburski, Kacper, Guadagno, Elena, Mohtashami, Sadaf, Poenaru, Dan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7696205/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32700367
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13105
_version_ 1783615356593504256
author Niburski, Kacper
Guadagno, Elena
Mohtashami, Sadaf
Poenaru, Dan
author_facet Niburski, Kacper
Guadagno, Elena
Mohtashami, Sadaf
Poenaru, Dan
author_sort Niburski, Kacper
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) has been increasingly implemented to improve health‐care outcomes. Despite the mixed efficacy of SDM to provide better patient‐guided care, its use in surgery has not been studied. The aim of this study was to systematically review SDM application in surgery. DESIGN: The search strategy, developed with a medical librarian, included nine databases from inception until June 2019. After a 2‐person title and abstract screen, full‐text publications were analysed. Data collected included author, year, surgical discipline, location, study duration, type of decision aid, survey methodology and variable outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative cross‐sectional studies, as well as RCTs, were included. RESULTS: A total of 6060 studies were retrieved. A total of 148 were included in the final review. The majority of the studies were in plastic surgery, followed by general surgery and orthopaedics. The use of SDM decreased surgical intervention rate (12 of 22), decisional conflict (25 of 29), and decisional regret (5 of 5), and increased decisional satisfaction (17 of 21), knowledge (33 of 35), SDM preference (13 of 16), and physician trust (4 of 6). Time increase per patient encounter was inconclusive. Cross‐sectional studies showed that patients prefer shared treatment and surgical treatment varied less. The results of SDM per type of decision aid vary in terms of their outcome. CONCLUSION: SDM in surgery decreases decisional conflict, anxiety and surgical intervention rates, while increasing knowledge retained decisional satisfaction, quality and physician trust. Surgical patients also appear to prefer SDM paradigms. SDM appears beneficial in surgery and therefore worth promoting and expanding in use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7696205
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76962052020-12-10 Shared decision making in surgery: A scoping review of the literature Niburski, Kacper Guadagno, Elena Mohtashami, Sadaf Poenaru, Dan Health Expect Original Research Papers BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) has been increasingly implemented to improve health‐care outcomes. Despite the mixed efficacy of SDM to provide better patient‐guided care, its use in surgery has not been studied. The aim of this study was to systematically review SDM application in surgery. DESIGN: The search strategy, developed with a medical librarian, included nine databases from inception until June 2019. After a 2‐person title and abstract screen, full‐text publications were analysed. Data collected included author, year, surgical discipline, location, study duration, type of decision aid, survey methodology and variable outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative cross‐sectional studies, as well as RCTs, were included. RESULTS: A total of 6060 studies were retrieved. A total of 148 were included in the final review. The majority of the studies were in plastic surgery, followed by general surgery and orthopaedics. The use of SDM decreased surgical intervention rate (12 of 22), decisional conflict (25 of 29), and decisional regret (5 of 5), and increased decisional satisfaction (17 of 21), knowledge (33 of 35), SDM preference (13 of 16), and physician trust (4 of 6). Time increase per patient encounter was inconclusive. Cross‐sectional studies showed that patients prefer shared treatment and surgical treatment varied less. The results of SDM per type of decision aid vary in terms of their outcome. CONCLUSION: SDM in surgery decreases decisional conflict, anxiety and surgical intervention rates, while increasing knowledge retained decisional satisfaction, quality and physician trust. Surgical patients also appear to prefer SDM paradigms. SDM appears beneficial in surgery and therefore worth promoting and expanding in use. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-07-22 2020-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7696205/ /pubmed/32700367 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13105 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research Papers
Niburski, Kacper
Guadagno, Elena
Mohtashami, Sadaf
Poenaru, Dan
Shared decision making in surgery: A scoping review of the literature
title Shared decision making in surgery: A scoping review of the literature
title_full Shared decision making in surgery: A scoping review of the literature
title_fullStr Shared decision making in surgery: A scoping review of the literature
title_full_unstemmed Shared decision making in surgery: A scoping review of the literature
title_short Shared decision making in surgery: A scoping review of the literature
title_sort shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of the literature
topic Original Research Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7696205/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32700367
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13105
work_keys_str_mv AT niburskikacper shareddecisionmakinginsurgeryascopingreviewoftheliterature
AT guadagnoelena shareddecisionmakinginsurgeryascopingreviewoftheliterature
AT mohtashamisadaf shareddecisionmakinginsurgeryascopingreviewoftheliterature
AT poenarudan shareddecisionmakinginsurgeryascopingreviewoftheliterature