Cargando…
Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review
BACKGROUND: Interventions to change health professionals’ behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: We extracted data from a 2017...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8926249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35294494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265401 |
_version_ | 1784670199485562880 |
---|---|
author | Agbadjé, Titilayo Tatiana Riganti, Paula Adisso, Évèhouénou Lionel Adekpedjou, Rhéda Boucher, Alexandrine Nunciaroni, Andressa Teoli Franco, Juan Victor Ariel Yanzi, Maria Victoria Ruiz Légaré, France |
author_facet | Agbadjé, Titilayo Tatiana Riganti, Paula Adisso, Évèhouénou Lionel Adekpedjou, Rhéda Boucher, Alexandrine Nunciaroni, Andressa Teoli Franco, Juan Victor Ariel Yanzi, Maria Victoria Ruiz Légaré, France |
author_sort | Agbadjé, Titilayo Tatiana |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Interventions to change health professionals’ behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under “what materials?” we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses. RESULTS: Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: “brief name” (87/87, 100%), “why” (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and “what” (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were “materials” (29/87, 33%), “who” (23/87, 26%), and “when and how much” (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: “tailoring” (8/87, 9%), “modifications” (3/87, 4%), and “how well (actual)” (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported “How”, (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8926249 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89262492022-03-17 Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review Agbadjé, Titilayo Tatiana Riganti, Paula Adisso, Évèhouénou Lionel Adekpedjou, Rhéda Boucher, Alexandrine Nunciaroni, Andressa Teoli Franco, Juan Victor Ariel Yanzi, Maria Victoria Ruiz Légaré, France PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Interventions to change health professionals’ behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under “what materials?” we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses. RESULTS: Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: “brief name” (87/87, 100%), “why” (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and “what” (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were “materials” (29/87, 33%), “who” (23/87, 26%), and “when and how much” (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: “tailoring” (8/87, 9%), “modifications” (3/87, 4%), and “how well (actual)” (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported “How”, (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions. Public Library of Science 2022-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8926249/ /pubmed/35294494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265401 Text en © 2022 Agbadjé et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Agbadjé, Titilayo Tatiana Riganti, Paula Adisso, Évèhouénou Lionel Adekpedjou, Rhéda Boucher, Alexandrine Nunciaroni, Andressa Teoli Franco, Juan Victor Ariel Yanzi, Maria Victoria Ruiz Légaré, France Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review |
title | Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review |
title_full | Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review |
title_fullStr | Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review |
title_short | Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review |
title_sort | are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? secondary analysis of a cochrane systematic review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8926249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35294494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265401 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT agbadjetitilayotatiana areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT rigantipaula areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT adissoevehouenoulionel areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT adekpedjourheda areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT boucheralexandrine areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT nunciaroniandressateoli areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT francojuanvictorariel areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT yanzimariavictoriaruiz areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT legarefrance areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview |