Shared Decision-Making in Dermatology A Scoping Review

被引:18
|
作者
Morrison, Tessalyn [1 ]
Johnson, Jacob [1 ]
Baghoomian, Wenelia [1 ]
Hamilton, Andrew [1 ]
Simpson, Eric [1 ]
Greiling, Teri [1 ]
Foster, Erin [1 ]
机构
[1] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Ctr Hlth & Healing, 3303 SW Bond Ave,16th Floor, Portland, OR 97239 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.5362
中图分类号
R75 [皮肤病学与性病学];
学科分类号
100206 ;
摘要
IMPORTANCE Shared decision-making (SDM) can improve the quality of care for patients. The extent to which this tool has been used and the evidence supporting its use in dermatology have not been systematically examined. OBJECTIVE To perform a scoping review of the literature regarding SDM in dermatology. EVIDENCE REVIEW Searches of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Sciverse Scopus, and EBM Reviews were conduced on July 11, 2019, and March 6, 2020. There were no limits on date, type of article, language, or subject for the initial search. A total of 1673 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers in the Covidence mixed-methods platform. Forty-one full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. For inclusion, articles needed to include a dermatologic diagnosis as well as discussion of SDM or patient decision aids. Two independent reviewers screened 29 full-text articles for inclusion and extracted qualitative data using a set of 26 predefined codes. Qualitative coding was applied to excerpts to categorize the article, define and describe advantages and disadvantages of SDM, understand patient and physician requests for SDM, and discuss methods of implementation. FINDINGS Despite a small number of articles on SDM (n = 29) in dermatology, the selected literature provided consistent messages regarding the importance of SDM for dermatology and a number of strategies and tools for implementation. Medical dermatology was the most common subspecialty studied, with melanoma, psoriasis, and connective tissue diseases most examined. Only 5 publications introduced SDM tools specifically for dermatologic conditions; of these, only 2 tools were validated. Barriers to implementation that were cited included time and a lack of training for clinicians, although the literature also provided potential solutions to these issues. All articles emphasized the value of SDM for both patients and physicians. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The literature regarding SDM in dermatology consistently suggests that it is a useful tool for providing patient-centered care. Established tools have been proposed since 2012. More research is needed to implement better practices, especially in dermatologic subspecialties. However, there are substantial suggestions from the literature for strategies and tools with which to begin a shared decision-making practice.
引用
收藏
页码:330 / 337
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Shared decision-making in neurosurgery: a scoping review
    Alba Corell
    Annie Guo
    Tomás Gómez Vecchio
    Anneli Ozanne
    Asgeir S. Jakola
    [J]. Acta Neurochirurgica, 2021, 163 : 2371 - 2382
  • [2] Shared decision-making in neurosurgery: a scoping review
    Corell, Alba
    Guo, Annie
    Vecchio, Tomas Gomez
    Ozanne, Anneli
    Jakola, Asgeir S.
    [J]. ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2021, 163 (09) : 2371 - 2382
  • [3] Shared responsibility for decision-making in NICU: A scoping review
    Pellikka, Hanna-Kaisa
    Axelin, Anna
    Sankilampi, Ulla
    Kangasniemi, Mari
    [J]. NURSING ETHICS, 2023, 30 (03) : 462 - 476
  • [4] SHARED DECISION-MAKING IN GENETIC COUNSELING: A SCOPING REVIEW
    Peng, Chenyang
    Ni, Ning
    Li, Yiyu
    Tan, Xiangmin
    Tu, Chaofeng
    Mei, Sun
    [J]. ACTA BIOETHICA, 2022, 28 (02) : 227 - 237
  • [5] Shared decision-making in persons living with dementia: A scoping review
    Mattos, Meghan K.
    Gibson, Jessie S.
    Wilson, Dan
    Jepson, Laura
    Ahn, Soojung
    Williams, Ishan C.
    [J]. DEMENTIA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2023, 22 (04): : 875 - 909
  • [6] Shared decision-making in advanced kidney disease: a scoping review
    Engels, Noel
    de Graav, Gretchen N.
    van der Nat, Paul
    van den Dorpel, Marinus
    Stiggelbout, Anne M.
    Bos, Willem Jan
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (09):
  • [7] The Impact of Shared Decision-Making in Perinatal Care: A Scoping Review
    Megregian, Michele
    Emeis, Cathy
    Nieuwenhuijze, Marianne
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MIDWIFERY & WOMENS HEALTH, 2020, 65 (06) : 777 - 788
  • [8] Shared decision-making in healthcare in mainland China: a scoping review
    Li, Xuejing
    Yang, Dan
    Meng, Meiqi
    Zhao, Junqiang
    Yin, Yiyi
    Wang, Hefang
    Zhang, Xiaoyan
    Liu, Qian
    Li, Mengdi
    Liu, Jianping
    Hao, Yufang
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH, 2023, 11
  • [9] More work needed on decision analysis for shared decision-making: A scoping review
    Humphries, Brittany
    Leon-Garcia, Montserrat
    Quispe, Ena Nino de Guzman
    Canelo-Aybar, Carlos
    Valli, Claudia
    Pacheco-Barrios, Kevin
    Agarwal, Arnav
    Mirabi, Susan
    Eckman, Mark H.
    Guyatt, Gordon
    Bates, Shannon M.
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Xie, Feng
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 141 : 106 - 120
  • [10] Shared Decision-Making in Athletes Diagnosed With a Cardiovascular Condition: A Scoping Review
    Corneil, Heidi
    Liblik, Kiera
    Varghese, Sonu
    Masotti, Bruce
    Moulson, Nathaniel
    McKinney, Jimmy
    Allan, Katherine S.
    Johri, Amer
    Grubic, Nicholas
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2022, 146