scholarly journals Impact of a Shared Decision Making Intervention on Health Care Utilization: A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason T. Schaffer ◽  
Erik P. Hess ◽  
Judd E. Hollander ◽  
Jeffrey A. Kline ◽  
Carlos A. Torres ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Health Care Utilization ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Multicenter Randomized Trial

Systematic review on shared decision making for patients with lung cancer: Effects on distress and health care utilization.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 31-31
Author(s):  
Olaf Geerse ◽  
Mariken Stegmann ◽  
Huib A.M. Kerstjens ◽  
Thijo Jeroen Nicolaas Hiltermann ◽  
Marie Bakitas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Care Utilization ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Utilization ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
The Impact

31 Background: Lung cancer is associated with significant distress, poor quality of life, and a median prognosis of less than one year. Shared decision making (SDM) has been recommended as a strategy to help guide patients facing difficult treatment trade-offs. Potential benefits of SDM include enhanced knowledge and better congruence between treatment decisions and patients’ personal values and have been described in multiple diseases. We investigated the impact of SDM on distress and healthcare utilization among patients with lung cancer. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in the CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO databases. Studies were eligible when conducted among patients with lung cancer, evaluated SDM, and measured distress and/or health care utilization as outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: A total of 11 articles were identified: two retrospective cohort studies and nine articles reporting on eight randomized controlled trials. Overall, the risk of bias of included studies was low, except for a high risk of bias concerning blinding of participants or personnel. All studies reported on a broad supportive care intervention with SDM as a component of the intervention. No beneficial effect was found in five studies measuring generic distress, while one study reported beneficial effects on depression. There was conflicting evidence regarding the effects of SDM on healthcare utilization; of the seven studies analyzing this, five studies found evidence for a reduction in healthcare utilization. Conclusions: Although relevant, only scarce evidence is currently available on the effects of SDM on distress and healthcare utilization among patients with lung cancer. Thus, additional research is needed before SDM can be recommended in the lung cancer context.

scholarly journals Effects of Shared Decision Making on Distress and Health Care Utilization Among Patients With Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 975-987.e5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olaf P. Geerse ◽  
Mariken E. Stegmann ◽  
Huib A.M. Kerstjens ◽  
Thijo Jeroen N. Hiltermann ◽  
Marie Bakitas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Care Utilization ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals The impact of DECISION+2 on patient intention to engage in shared decision making: secondary analysis of a multicentre clustered randomized trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 2629-2637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Couët ◽  
Michel Labrecque ◽  
Hubert Robitaille ◽  
Stéphane Turcotte ◽  
France Légaré
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
The Impact

A survey of health care practitioners’ attitudes toward shared decision‐making for choice of next birth after cesarean

Birth ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Munro ◽  
Elizabeth S. Wilcox ◽  
Leah K. Lambert ◽  
Monica Norena ◽  
Sarah Kaufman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Health Care Practitioners

Telemedicine, the effect of nurse-initiated telephone follow up, on health status and health-care utilization in COPD patients: A randomized trial

Respirology ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farida F. Berkhof ◽  
Jan W.K. van den Berg ◽  
Steven M. Uil ◽  
Huib A.M. Kerstjens
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Health Care Utilization ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Copd Patients

scholarly journals “They Should Be Asking Us”: A Qualitative Decisional Needs Assessment for Women Considering Cervical Cancer Screening

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 233339361878363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianne Wood ◽  
Virginia L. Russell ◽  
Ziad El-Khatib ◽  
Susan McFaul ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Screening ◽  
Hpv Testing ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Providers

In this study, we examine from multiple perspectives, women’s shared decision-making needs when considering cervical screening options: Pap testing, in-clinic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, self-collected HPV testing, or no screening. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework guided the development of the interview schedule. We conducted semi-structured interviews with seven screen-eligible women and five health care professionals (three health care providers and two health system managers). Women did not perceive that cervical screening involves a “decision,” which limited their knowledge of options, risks, and benefits. Women and health professionals emphasized how a trusted primary care provider can support women making a choice among cervical screening modalities. Having all cervical screening options recommended and funded was perceived as an important step to facilitate shared decision making. Supporting women in making preference-based decisions in cervical cancer screening may increase screening among those who do not undergo screening regularly and decrease uptake in women who are over-screened.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document