Cargando…

Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES: To assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: DAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hommes, Saar, Vromans, Ruben, Clouth, Felix, Verbeek, Xander, de Hingh, Ignace, Krahmer, Emiel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8094367/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33926980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044472
_version_ 1783687967251890176
author Hommes, Saar
Vromans, Ruben
Clouth, Felix
Verbeek, Xander
de Hingh, Ignace
Krahmer, Emiel
author_facet Hommes, Saar
Vromans, Ruben
Clouth, Felix
Verbeek, Xander
de Hingh, Ignace
Krahmer, Emiel
author_sort Hommes, Saar
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: DAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: DAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist. RESULTS: In total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language. CONCLUSIONS: Both instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8094367
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80943672021-05-18 Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review Hommes, Saar Vromans, Ruben Clouth, Felix Verbeek, Xander de Hingh, Ignace Krahmer, Emiel BMJ Open Oncology OBJECTIVES: To assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: DAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: DAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist. RESULTS: In total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language. CONCLUSIONS: Both instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-04-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8094367/ /pubmed/33926980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044472 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Oncology
Hommes, Saar
Vromans, Ruben
Clouth, Felix
Verbeek, Xander
de Hingh, Ignace
Krahmer, Emiel
Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review
title Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review
title_full Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review
title_fullStr Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review
title_short Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review
title_sort communication in decision aids for stage i–iii colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8094367/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33926980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044472
work_keys_str_mv AT hommessaar communicationindecisionaidsforstageiiiicolorectalcancerpatientsasystematicreview
AT vromansruben communicationindecisionaidsforstageiiiicolorectalcancerpatientsasystematicreview
AT clouthfelix communicationindecisionaidsforstageiiiicolorectalcancerpatientsasystematicreview
AT verbeekxander communicationindecisionaidsforstageiiiicolorectalcancerpatientsasystematicreview
AT dehinghignace communicationindecisionaidsforstageiiiicolorectalcancerpatientsasystematicreview
AT krahmeremiel communicationindecisionaidsforstageiiiicolorectalcancerpatientsasystematicreview