Patient decision support interventions for candidates considering elective surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author:

Cheng Ling Jie1ORCID,Bansback Nick2ORCID,Liao Meixia1ORCID,Wu Vivien Xi3ORCID,Wang Wenru3ORCID,Liu Gabriel Ka Po45ORCID,Hey Hwee Weng Dennis45ORCID,Luo Nan1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore

2. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

3. Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore

4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore

5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore

Abstract

Background: The increase in elective surgeries and varied postoperative patient outcomes has boosted the use of patient decision support interventions (PDSIs). However, evidence on the effectiveness of PDSIs are not updated. This systematic review aims to summarize the effects of PDSIs for surgical candidates considering elective surgeries and to identify their moderators with an emphasis on the type of targeted surgery. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We searched eight electronic databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating PDSIs among elective surgical candidates. We documented the effects on invasive treatment choice, decision-making–related outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and healthcare resource use. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations were adopted to rate the risk of bias of individual trials and certainty of evidence, respectively. STATA 16 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Results: Fifty-eight trials comprising 14 981 adults from 11 countries were included. Overall, PDSIs had no effect on invasive treatment choice (risk ratio=0.97; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.04), consultation time (mean difference=0.04 min; 95% CI: −0.17, 0.24), or patient-reported outcomes, but had a beneficial effect on decisional conflict (Hedges’ g=−0.29; 95% CI: −0.41, −0.16), disease and treatment knowledge (Hedges’ g=0.32; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.49), decision-making preparedness (Hedges’ g=0.22; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.34), and decision quality (risk ratio=1.98; 95% CI: 1.15, 3.39). Treatment choice varied with surgery type and self-guided PDSIs had a greater effect on disease and treatment knowledge enhancement than clinician-delivered PDSIs. Conclusions: This review has demonstrated that PDSIs targeting individuals considering elective surgeries had benefited their decision-making by reducing decisional conflict and increasing disease and treatment knowledge, decision-making preparedness, and decision quality. These findings may be used to guide the development and evaluation of new PDSIs for elective surgical care.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

General Medicine,Surgery

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3