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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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