Institute for Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Nursing Research Unit, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany, Institute of Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis (INIMS), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Health Services Research, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Niedersachsen, Germany.
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):938-953. doi: 10.1177/0272989X21997330. Epub 2021 Mar 24.
INTRODUCTION: In 2005, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) collaboration identified guidance and decision coaching as important dimensions of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and developed a set of quality criteria. We sought to update definitions, theoretical rationale, and evidence for guidance and/or decision coaching used within or alongside PtDAs for the IPDAS update 2.0. METHODS: We conducted 2 scoping reviews on guidance and decision coaching, including systematic searches and a hand search of the Cochrane Review on PtDAs. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on guidance or decision coaching used with/alongside PtDAs. Data, including conceptual models, were summarized narratively and with meta-analyses when appropriate. RESULTS: Of 1022 citations, we found no RCTs that evaluated guidance in PtDAs. The 2013 definition for guidance was endorsed, and we made minimal changes to the description of guidance. Of 3039 citations, we identified 21 RCTs on decision coaching informed by 5 conceptual models stating that people exposed to decision coaching are more likely to progress in making informed decisions consistent with their values. Compared to usual care, decision coaching with PtDAs led to improved knowledge mean difference [MD], 19.5/100; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0-29.0; 5 RCTs). Compared to decision coaching alone, PtDAs led to a small improvement in knowledge (MD, 3.6/100; 95% CI, 1.0-6.3; 3 RCTs). There were variable effects on other outcomes. We simplified the decision coaching definition slightly and defined minimal decision coaching elements. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence on which to propose changes in guidance in IPDAS. Decision coaching is continuing to be used alongside PtDAs, but there is inadequate evidence on the added effectiveness compared to PtDAs alone. The decision coaching definition was updated with minimal elements.
简介:2005 年,国际患者决策辅助标准(IPDAS)合作组织确定了指导和决策辅导作为患者决策辅助工具(PtDAs)的重要维度,并制定了一套质量标准。我们旨在更新 IPDAS 更新 2.0 中与 PtDAs 一起使用或与之相关的指导和/或决策辅导的定义、理论基础和证据。
方法:我们对指导和决策辅导进行了 2 次范围界定审查,包括系统搜索和对 Cochrane 关于 PtDAs 的综述的手动搜索。合格的研究是关于指导或决策辅导与 PtDAs 一起使用的随机对照试验(RCTs)。数据,包括概念模型,以叙述性和适当的荟萃分析进行总结。
结果:在 1022 条引文,我们没有发现评估 PtDAs 中指导的 RCT。2013 年的指导定义得到了认可,我们对指导的描述做了最小的改动。在 3039 条引文,我们确定了 21 项 RCT,这些 RCT 受 5 个概念模型的指导,表明接受决策辅导的人更有可能在做出符合其价值观的知情决策方面取得进展。与常规护理相比,与 PtDAs 一起进行的决策辅导导致知识的改善,平均值差[MD]为 19.5/100;95%置信区间[CI]为 10.0-29.0;5 项 RCT)。与单独的决策辅导相比,PtDAs 导致知识略有改善(MD,3.6/100;95% CI,1.0-6.3;3 项 RCT)。其他结果的效果不同。我们对决策辅导的定义进行了略微简化,并定义了最小的决策辅导元素。
结论:我们没有发现任何证据可以在 IPDAS 中提出关于指导的变化。决策辅导继续与 PtDAs 一起使用,但与单独使用 PtDAs 相比,其额外效果的证据不足。决策辅导的定义用最小的元素进行了更新。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013-11-29
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009-7-8
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014-1-28
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011-10-5
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024-1-29
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2025-3-27
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2025-3-10
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2024-12-27
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024-11-6