Shared decision making and choice for elective surgical care: A systematic review

Emily Boss, Nishchay Mehta, Neeraja Nagarajan, Anne Links, James R. Benke, Zackary Berger, Ali Espinel, Jeremy Meier, Ellen A. Lipstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective Shared decision making (SDM), an integrative patient-provider communication process emphasizing discussion of scientific evidence and patient/family values, may improve quality care delivery, promote evidence-based practice, and reduce overuse of surgical care. Little is known, however, regarding SDM in elective surgical practice. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize findings of studies evaluating use and outcomes of SDM in elective surgery. Data Sources PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS electronic databases. Review Methods We searched for English-language studies (January 1, 1990, to August 9, 2015) evaluating use of SDM in elective surgical care where choice for surgery could be ascertained. Identified studies were independently screened by 2 reviewers in stages of title/abstract and full-text review. We abstracted data related to population, study design, clinical dilemma, use of SDM, outcomes, treatment choice, and bias. Results Of 10,929 identified articles, 24 met inclusion criteria. The most common area studied was spine (7 of 24), followed by joint (5 of 24) and gynecologic surgery (4 of 24). Twenty studies used decision aids or support tools, including modalities that were multimedia/video (13 of 20), written (3 of 20), or personal coaching (4 of 20). Effect of SDM on preference for surgery was mixed across studies, showing a decrease in surgery (9 of 24), no difference (8 of 24), or an increase (1 of 24). SDM tended to improve decision quality (3 of 3) as well as knowledge or preparation (4 of 6) while decreasing decision conflict (4 of 6). Conclusion SDM reduces decision conflict and improves decision quality for patients making choices about elective surgery. While net findings show that SDM may influence patients to choose surgery less often, the impact of SDM on surgical utilization cannot be clearly ascertained.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)405-420
Number of pages16
JournalOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume154
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

Decision Making
Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
Multimedia
Decision Support Techniques
Quality of Health Care
Evidence-Based Practice
Information Storage and Retrieval
PubMed
Spine
Language
Joints
Communication
Databases
Population

Keywords

  • decision aid
  • decision support tool
  • elective surgery
  • informed decision making
  • shared decision-making
  • systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Shared decision making and choice for elective surgical care : A systematic review. / Boss, Emily; Mehta, Nishchay; Nagarajan, Neeraja; Links, Anne; Benke, James R.; Berger, Zackary; Espinel, Ali; Meier, Jeremy; Lipstein, Ellen A.

In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 154, No. 3, 01.03.2016, p. 405-420.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Boss, E, Mehta, N, Nagarajan, N, Links, A, Benke, JR, Berger, Z, Espinel, A, Meier, J & Lipstein, EA 2016, 'Shared decision making and choice for elective surgical care: A systematic review', Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 154, no. 3, pp. 405-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599815620558
Boss, Emily ; Mehta, Nishchay ; Nagarajan, Neeraja ; Links, Anne ; Benke, James R. ; Berger, Zackary ; Espinel, Ali ; Meier, Jeremy ; Lipstein, Ellen A. / Shared decision making and choice for elective surgical care : A systematic review. In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2016 ; Vol. 154, No. 3. pp. 405-420.
@article{15f23b1d3d48467e959eef9cdd5a46fa,
title = "Shared decision making and choice for elective surgical care: A systematic review",
abstract = "Objective Shared decision making (SDM), an integrative patient-provider communication process emphasizing discussion of scientific evidence and patient/family values, may improve quality care delivery, promote evidence-based practice, and reduce overuse of surgical care. Little is known, however, regarding SDM in elective surgical practice. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize findings of studies evaluating use and outcomes of SDM in elective surgery. Data Sources PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS electronic databases. Review Methods We searched for English-language studies (January 1, 1990, to August 9, 2015) evaluating use of SDM in elective surgical care where choice for surgery could be ascertained. Identified studies were independently screened by 2 reviewers in stages of title/abstract and full-text review. We abstracted data related to population, study design, clinical dilemma, use of SDM, outcomes, treatment choice, and bias. Results Of 10,929 identified articles, 24 met inclusion criteria. The most common area studied was spine (7 of 24), followed by joint (5 of 24) and gynecologic surgery (4 of 24). Twenty studies used decision aids or support tools, including modalities that were multimedia/video (13 of 20), written (3 of 20), or personal coaching (4 of 20). Effect of SDM on preference for surgery was mixed across studies, showing a decrease in surgery (9 of 24), no difference (8 of 24), or an increase (1 of 24). SDM tended to improve decision quality (3 of 3) as well as knowledge or preparation (4 of 6) while decreasing decision conflict (4 of 6). Conclusion SDM reduces decision conflict and improves decision quality for patients making choices about elective surgery. While net findings show that SDM may influence patients to choose surgery less often, the impact of SDM on surgical utilization cannot be clearly ascertained.",
keywords = "decision aid, decision support tool, elective surgery, informed decision making, shared decision-making, systematic review",
author = "Emily Boss and Nishchay Mehta and Neeraja Nagarajan and Anne Links and Benke, {James R.} and Zackary Berger and Ali Espinel and Jeremy Meier and Lipstein, {Ellen A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0194599815620558",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "154",
pages = "405--420",
journal = "Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery",
issn = "0194-5998",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shared decision making and choice for elective surgical care

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Boss, Emily

AU - Mehta, Nishchay

AU - Nagarajan, Neeraja

AU - Links, Anne

AU - Benke, James R.

AU - Berger, Zackary

AU - Espinel, Ali

AU - Meier, Jeremy

AU - Lipstein, Ellen A.

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Objective Shared decision making (SDM), an integrative patient-provider communication process emphasizing discussion of scientific evidence and patient/family values, may improve quality care delivery, promote evidence-based practice, and reduce overuse of surgical care. Little is known, however, regarding SDM in elective surgical practice. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize findings of studies evaluating use and outcomes of SDM in elective surgery. Data Sources PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS electronic databases. Review Methods We searched for English-language studies (January 1, 1990, to August 9, 2015) evaluating use of SDM in elective surgical care where choice for surgery could be ascertained. Identified studies were independently screened by 2 reviewers in stages of title/abstract and full-text review. We abstracted data related to population, study design, clinical dilemma, use of SDM, outcomes, treatment choice, and bias. Results Of 10,929 identified articles, 24 met inclusion criteria. The most common area studied was spine (7 of 24), followed by joint (5 of 24) and gynecologic surgery (4 of 24). Twenty studies used decision aids or support tools, including modalities that were multimedia/video (13 of 20), written (3 of 20), or personal coaching (4 of 20). Effect of SDM on preference for surgery was mixed across studies, showing a decrease in surgery (9 of 24), no difference (8 of 24), or an increase (1 of 24). SDM tended to improve decision quality (3 of 3) as well as knowledge or preparation (4 of 6) while decreasing decision conflict (4 of 6). Conclusion SDM reduces decision conflict and improves decision quality for patients making choices about elective surgery. While net findings show that SDM may influence patients to choose surgery less often, the impact of SDM on surgical utilization cannot be clearly ascertained.

AB - Objective Shared decision making (SDM), an integrative patient-provider communication process emphasizing discussion of scientific evidence and patient/family values, may improve quality care delivery, promote evidence-based practice, and reduce overuse of surgical care. Little is known, however, regarding SDM in elective surgical practice. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize findings of studies evaluating use and outcomes of SDM in elective surgery. Data Sources PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS electronic databases. Review Methods We searched for English-language studies (January 1, 1990, to August 9, 2015) evaluating use of SDM in elective surgical care where choice for surgery could be ascertained. Identified studies were independently screened by 2 reviewers in stages of title/abstract and full-text review. We abstracted data related to population, study design, clinical dilemma, use of SDM, outcomes, treatment choice, and bias. Results Of 10,929 identified articles, 24 met inclusion criteria. The most common area studied was spine (7 of 24), followed by joint (5 of 24) and gynecologic surgery (4 of 24). Twenty studies used decision aids or support tools, including modalities that were multimedia/video (13 of 20), written (3 of 20), or personal coaching (4 of 20). Effect of SDM on preference for surgery was mixed across studies, showing a decrease in surgery (9 of 24), no difference (8 of 24), or an increase (1 of 24). SDM tended to improve decision quality (3 of 3) as well as knowledge or preparation (4 of 6) while decreasing decision conflict (4 of 6). Conclusion SDM reduces decision conflict and improves decision quality for patients making choices about elective surgery. While net findings show that SDM may influence patients to choose surgery less often, the impact of SDM on surgical utilization cannot be clearly ascertained.

KW - decision aid

KW - decision support tool

KW - elective surgery

KW - informed decision making

KW - shared decision-making

KW - systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959300479&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959300479&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0194599815620558

DO - 10.1177/0194599815620558

M3 - Article

C2 - 26645531

AN - SCOPUS:84959300479

VL - 154

SP - 405

EP - 420

JO - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

JF - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

SN - 0194-5998

IS - 3

ER -