Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2024 Jun;66:152432. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152432. Epub 2024 Mar 19.
Shared decision-making (SDM) tools are facilitators of decision-making through a collaborative process between patients/caregivers and clinicians. These tools help clinicians understand patient's perspectives and help patients in making informed decisions based on their preferences. Despite their usefulness for both patients and clinicians, SDM tools are not widely implemented in everyday practice. One barrier is the lack of clarity on the development and evaluation processes of these tools. Such processes have not been previously described in the field of rheumatology.
To describe the development and evaluation processes of shared decision-making (SDM) tools used in rheumatology.
Bibliographic databases (e.g., EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched for relevant articles. Guidelines for the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews were followed. Studies included were: addressing SDM among adults in rheumatology, focusing on development and/or evaluation of SDM tool, full texts, empirical research, and in the English language.
Of the 2030 records screened, forty-six reports addressing 36 SDM tools were included. Development basis and evaluation measures varied across the studies. The most commonly reported development basis was the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria (19/36, 53 %). Other developmental foundations reported were: The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) (6/36, 16 %), Informed Medical Decision Foundation elements (3/36, 8 %), edutainment principles (2/36, 5.5 %), and others (e.g. DISCERN and MARKOV Model) (9/31,29 %). The most commonly used evaluation measures were the Decisional Conflict Scale (18/46, 39 %), acceptability and knowledge (7/46, 15 %), and the preparation for decision-making scale (5/46,11 %).
For better quality and wider implementation of such tools, there is a need for detailed, transparent, systematic, and consistent reporting of development methods and evaluation measures. Using established checklists for reporting development and evaluation is encouraged.
共享决策（SDM）工具通过患者/照护者和临床医生之间的协作过程来促进决策。这些工具帮助临床医生了解患者的观点，并帮助患者根据自己的偏好做出明智的决策。尽管这些工具对患者和临床医生都很有用，但它们在日常实践中并未得到广泛应用。其中一个障碍是缺乏对这些工具的开发和评估过程的清晰认识。在风湿病学领域，这些过程以前没有被描述过。
描述在风湿病学中使用的共享决策（SDM）工具的开发和评估过程。
对相关文献进行了文献数据库（如 EMBASE 和 CINAHL）检索。遵循 PRISMA 扩展范围综述指南。纳入的研究为：针对风湿病学中的成年人进行的 SDM，侧重于 SDM 工具的开发和/或评估，全文，实证研究，以及英语语言。
在筛选的 2030 条记录中，有 46 份报告涉及 36 种 SDM 工具。研究之间的开发基础和评估措施各不相同。报告最多的开发基础是国际患者决策辅助标准（IPDAS）标准（19/36，53%）。其他报道的开发基础包括：渥太华决策支持框架（ODSF）（6/36，16%）、知情医疗决策基础元素（3/36，8%）、教育娱乐原则（2/36，5.5%）和其他（如 DISCERN 和 MARKOV 模型）（31/36，29%）。最常用的评估措施是决策冲突量表（18/46，39%）、可接受性和知识（7/46，15%）和决策准备量表（5/46，11%）。
为了提高这些工具的质量和更广泛的应用，需要详细、透明、系统和一致地报告开发方法和评估措施。鼓励使用既定的报告开发和评估清单。
