What Works in Implementing Patient Decision Aids in Routine Clinical Settings? A Rapid Realist Review and Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration

Author:

Joseph-Williams Natalie1ORCID,Abhyankar Purva2,Boland Laura3ORCID,Bravo Paulina4,Brenner Alison T.5,Brodney Suzanne6ORCID,Coulter Angela7ORCID,Giguère Anik8,Hoffman Aubri9ORCID,Körner Mirjam10,Langford Aisha11ORCID,Légaré France12ORCID,Matlock Daniel13ORCID,Moumjid Nora14,Munro Sarah15,Dahl Steffensen Karina16,Stirling Christine17,van der Weijden Trudy18

Affiliation:

1. School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

2. Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

3. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, School of Health Sciences, Ottawa, Canada and Western University, School of Health Studies, London, ON, Canada

4. School of Nursing, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

5. Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Medical School, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

6. Informed Medical Decisions Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

7. Coulter & Coulter Ltd, Oxford, UK

8. Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada

9. Department of Gynaecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA

10. Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Medical Faculty, Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg, Germany

11. Department of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

12. Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université of Laval, Quebec, Canada

13. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA

14. Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, Léon Bérard Cancer Centre, Lyon, Rhone-Alpes, France

15. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

16. Center for Shared Decision Making, Region of Southern Denmark and Department of Clinical Oncology, Vejle/Lillebaelt University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark and Institute of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

17. School of Nursing, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

18. CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Department of Family Medicine, Faculty Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background Decades of effectiveness research has established the benefits of using patient decision aids (PtDAs), yet broad clinical implementation has not yet occurred. Evidence to date is mainly derived from highly controlled settings; if clinicians and health care organizations are expected to embed PtDAs as a means to support person-centered care, we need to better understand what this might look like outside of a research setting. Aim This review was conducted in response to the IPDAS Collaboration’s evidence update process, which informs their published standards for PtDA quality and effectiveness. The aim was to develop context-specific program theories that explain why and how PtDAs are successfully implemented in routine healthcare settings. Methods Rapid realist review methodology was used to identify articles that could contribute to theory development. We engaged key experts and stakeholders to identify key sources; this was supplemented by electronic database (Medline and CINAHL), gray literature, and forward/backward search strategies. Initial theories were refined to develop realist context-mechanism-outcome configurations, and these were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results We developed 8 refined theories, using data from 23 implementation studies (29 articles), to describe the mechanisms by which PtDAs become successfully implemented into routine clinical settings. Recommended implementation strategies derived from the program theory include 1) co-production of PtDA content and processes (or local adaptation), 2) training the entire team, 3) preparing and prompting patients to engage, 4) senior-level buy-in, and 5) measuring to improve. Conclusions We recommend key strategies that organizations and individuals intending to embed PtDAs routinely can use as a practical guide. Further work is needed to understand the importance of context in the success of different implementation studies.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

Reference59 articles.

1. The impact and utility of encounter patient decision aids: Systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis

2. Secretary of State for Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. Stationary Office; 2010.

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