Decision Aids for Shared Decision-making in Uro-oncology: A Systematic Review

被引:14
|
作者
Gruene, Britta [1 ]
Kriegmair, Maximilian C. [1 ]
Lenhart, Maximilian [1 ]
Michel, Maurice S. [1 ]
Huber, Johannes [2 ]
Koether, Anja K. [3 ]
Buedenbender, Bjorn [3 ]
Alpers, Georg W. [3 ]
机构
[1] Heidelberg Univ, Univ Med Ctr Mannheim, Dept Urol, Mannheim, Germany
[2] Tech Univ Dresden, Dept Urol, Med Fac Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
[3] Univ Mannheim, Sch Social Sci, Dept Psychol, Mannheim, Germany
来源
EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS | 2022年 / 8卷 / 03期
关键词
Shared decision -making; Decision -making process; Decision aid; Urological cancer; Treatment options; LOCALIZED PROSTATE-CANCER; PATIENT PROFILE-PROSTATE; PREFERENCE; CARE; MEN; SUPPORT; DESIGN; REGRET; CHOICE;
D O I
10.1016/j.euf.2021.04.013
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context: Decision aids (DAs) aim to support patients in the process of shared decision -making for complex treatment decisions. To improve patient-centered care in uro-oncology, it is essential to evaluate the availability and quality of existing DAs.Objective: To assess the quality of existing DAs for patients across the most prevalent uro-oncological entities.Evidence acquisition: This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic literature search (MedLine, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, and CCMed) was conducted to identify DAs for treatment decisions for patients with prostate, renal, or bladder cancer. All studies reporting on the development or evaluation of DAs were included. The DAs were examined based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and the evaluation studies were compared in accordance with Standards for Universal reporting of a patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE). Evidence synthesis: The literature search identified 1995 potentially relevant publica-tions. Thirty-two studies reporting on 25 DAs met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two DAs address prostate cancer, two renal tumor, and one bladder cancer. In the majority of DAs (n = 20), patients can enter individual data. A few (n = 6) DAs allow for personalization using a risk-adapted presentation of treatment options. The percentage of IPDAS criteria met in DAs ranged between 50% and 100% (median 87.5%), and the studies' adherence to the SUNDAE checklist was between 62% and 96% (median 86.6%). Evaluation studies suggest that interventions are likely efficacious. However, a preliminary meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between "DA" and "usual care" for decisional conflict or decisional regret.Conclusions: This review highlights that a number of well-developed DAs exist in urology. However, there is a need for specific instruments targeting kidney and bladder cancer. Personalization of tools and adherence to international standards of DAs should be further improved.Patient summary: The majority of uro-oncological decision aids target prostate cancer, whereas fewer address kidney or bladder cancer. The quality of the existing instruments is high, but can be increased further to better address specific needs of individual patients.(c) 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:851 / 869
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Review of Shared Decision-Making and Patient Decision Aids in Radiation Oncology
    Woodhouse, Kristina Demas
    Tremont, Katie
    Vachani, Anil
    Schapira, Marilyn M.
    Vapiwala, Neha
    Simone, Charles B., II
    Berman, Abigail T.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION, 2017, 32 (02) : 238 - 245
  • [2] Impact of an uro-oncology multidisciplinary meeting on clinical decision-making
    Rao, K.
    Manya, K.
    Azad, A.
    Bolton, D.
    Davis, I.
    Sengupta, S.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 111 : 69 - 69
  • [3] The efficacy of decision aids to support shared decision-making in haemato-oncology: A systematic review
    Quinn, Sandra
    Copeland, Rachel
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY, 2023, 201 : 95 - 95
  • [4] Decision aids for promoting shared decision-making: A review of systematic reviews
    Park, Myonghwa
    Doan, Thao Thi-Thu
    Jung, Jihye
    Giap, Thi-Thanh-Tinh
    Kim, Jinju
    [J]. NURSING & HEALTH SCIENCES, 2024, 26 (01)
  • [5] Erratum to: A Review of Shared Decision-Making and Patient Decision Aids in Radiation Oncology
    Kristina DemasWoodhouse
    Katie Tremont
    Anil Vachani
    Marilyn M. Schapira
    Neha Vapiwala
    Charles B. Simone
    Abigail T. Berman
    [J]. Journal of Cancer Education, 2017, 32 : 246 - 246
  • [6] Exploring clinical decision-making among the uro-oncology MDT: A qualitative study
    Askelin, Blake
    Hind, Alicia
    Paterson, Catherine
    [J]. ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2023, 19 : 69 - 69
  • [7] Cancer patients’ perspective on shared decision-making and decision aids in oncology
    Lena Josfeld
    Christian Keinki
    Carolina Pammer
    Bijan Zomorodbakhsch
    Jutta Hübner
    [J]. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 2021, 147 : 1725 - 1732
  • [8] Cancer patients' perspective on shared decision-making and decision aids in oncology
    Josfeld, Lena
    Keinki, Christian
    Pammer, Carolina
    Zomorodbakhsch, Bijan
    Huebner, Jutta
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2021, 147 (06) : 1725 - 1732
  • [9] IMPACTS OF A URO-ONCOLOGY MULTIDISCIPLINARY MEETING ON CLINICAL DECISION MAKING
    Rao, Kenny
    Sengupta, Shomik
    Manya, Kiran
    Lawrentschuk, Nathan
    Bolton, Damien
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 189 (04): : E174 - E175
  • [10] Exploring Clinical Decision-Making among the Uro-oncology Multidisciplinary Team: A Qualitative Study
    Askelin, Blake
    Hind, Alicia
    Paterson, Catherine
    [J]. SEMINARS IN ONCOLOGY NURSING, 2023, 39 (04)