1
|
Hendriks MP, Jager A, Ebben KCWJ, van Til JA, Siesling S. Clinical decision support systems for multidisciplinary team decision-making in patients with solid cancer: Composition of an implementation model based on a scoping review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2024; 195:104267. [PMID: 38311011 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104267] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2023] [Revised: 12/18/2023] [Accepted: 01/11/2024] [Indexed: 02/06/2024] Open
Abstract
Generating guideline-based recommendations during multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings in solid cancers is getting more complex due to increasing amount of information needed to follow the guidelines. Usage of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can simplify and optimize decision-making. However, CDSS implementation is lagging behind. Therefore, we aim to compose a CDSS implementation model. By performing a scoping review of the currently reported CDSSs for MDT decision-making we determined 102 barriers and 86 facilitators for CDSS implementation out of 44 papers describing 20 different CDSSs. The most frequently reported barriers and facilitators for CDSS implementation supporting MDT decision-making concerned CDSS maintenance (e.g. incorporating guideline updates), validity of recommendations and interoperability with electronic health records. Based on the identified barriers and facilitators, we composed a CDSS implementation model describing clinical utility, analytic validity and clinical validity to guide CDSS integration more successfully in the clinical workflow to support MDTs in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mathijs P Hendriks
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Center, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands; Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), PO Box 19079, 3501 DB Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, Northwest Clinics, PO Box 501, 1800 AM Alkmaar, the Netherlands.
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Kees C W J Ebben
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), PO Box 19079, 3501 DB Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| | - Janine A van Til
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Center, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands.
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Center, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands; Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), PO Box 19079, 3501 DB Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Oprea N, Ardito V, Ciani O. Implementing shared decision-making interventions in breast cancer clinical practice: a scoping review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2023; 23:164. [PMID: 37612645 PMCID: PMC10463920 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-023-02263-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2023] [Accepted: 08/08/2023] [Indexed: 08/25/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process whereby patients and clinicians jointly deliberate on the best treatment option that takes into account patients' preferences and values. In breast cancer care, different treatment options have become available to patients in the last decade. Various interventions, including patient decision aids (PtDAs), have been designed to promote SDM in this disease area. This study aimed at investigating the factors that influence the successful adoption and implementation of SDM interventions in real-world healthcare delivery settings. METHODS A scoping review of scientific and grey literature was conducted for the period 2006-2021 to analyse the support for SDM interventions and their adoption in breast cancer clinical practice. The interpretation of findings was based on the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. RESULTS Overall, 19 studies were included for data synthesis, with more than 70% published since 2017. The availability of SDM tools does not automatically translate into their actual use in clinical settings. Factors related to users' co-creation, the clinical team's attitude and knowledge, organisational support and regulatory provisions facilitate the adoption of SDM interventions. However, overlooking aspects such as the re-organisation of care pathways, patient characteristics, and assigning of resources (human, financial, and facilities) can hinder implementation efforts. CONCLUSIONS Compared to the mounting evidence on the efficacy of SDM interventions, knowledge to support their sustained implementation in daily care is still limited, albeit results show an increasing interest in strategies that facilitate their uptake in breast cancer care over time. These findings highlight different strategies that can be used to embed SDM interventions in clinical practice. Future work should investigate which approaches are more effective in light of organisational conditions and external factors, including an evaluation of costs and healthcare system settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalia Oprea
- Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CeRGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, 20136, Italy.
| | - Vittoria Ardito
- Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CeRGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, 20136, Italy
| | - Oriana Ciani
- Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CeRGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, 20136, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Li X, Meng M, Zhao J, Zhang X, Yang D, Fang J, Wang J, Han L, Hao Y. Shared Decision-Making in Breast Reconstruction for Breast Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review. Patient Prefer Adherence 2021; 15:2763-2781. [PMID: 34916786 PMCID: PMC8670888 DOI: 10.2147/ppa.s335080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2021] [Accepted: 11/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
For most breast cancer (BC) patients who have undergone a mastectomy, the decision whether to proceed with breast reconstruction (BR) is complicated and requires deliberation. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps to address those needs and promote informed value-based decisions. However, little is known about the SDM status for BR in BC patients. This scoping review describes: 1) basic characteristics of studies on BR SDM in BC patients; 2) factors influencing BR SDM in BC patients; 3) experience and perception of BR SDM in BC patients; and 4) outcome measures reported. This review was performed in accordance with the Arksey and O'Malley methodology. A total of 5 English and 4 Chinese databases were searched, as well as different sources from grey literature. The data extraction form was developed by referring to the objectives and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF). Data was analyzed using thematic analysis, framework analysis and descriptive statistics, with findings presented in the tables and diagrams. A total of 1481 records were retrieved and 42 of these included after screening. In 21 (21/42, 50%) of the studies, patient decision aids (PDAs) were utilized, and in 17 (17/42, 40.48%) of the studies, the factors influencing the implementation of SDM were explored. Of these 17 studies, the factors influencing the implementation of SDM were categorized into the following: the patient level (17/17, 100%), the healthcare level (2/17, 11.76%) and the organizational and system level (7/17, 41.18%). A total of 8 (19.05%) of the 42 studies focused on patients' experiences and perceptions of SDM, and all studies used qualitative research methods. Of these 8 studies, a total of 7 (7/8, 87.50%) focused on patients' experiences of SDM participation, and 4 (4/8, 50.00%) focused on patients' perceptions of SDM. A total of 24 studies (24/42, 57.14%) involved quantitative outcome measures, where 49 items were divided into three classifications according to the outcomes of ODSF: the quality of the decision (17/24, 70.83%), the quality of the decision-making process (20/24, 83.33%), and impact (13/24, 54.17%). Although researchers have paid less attention to other research points in the field of SDM, compared to the design and application of SDM interventional tools, the research team still presents some equally noteworthy points through scoping review. For instance, the various factors influencing BC patients' participation in SDM for BR (especially at the healthcare provider level and at the organizational system level), patients' experiences and perceptions. Systematic reviews (SRs) should be conducted to quantify the impact of these different factors on BR SDM. Implementation of scientific theories and methods can inform the exploration and integration of these factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xuejing Li
- School of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Collaborating Center of Joanna Briggs Institute, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Best Practice Spotlight Organization, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Meiqi Meng
- School of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Collaborating Center of Joanna Briggs Institute, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Best Practice Spotlight Organization, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Junqiang Zhao
- School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Center for Research on Health and Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Xiaoyan Zhang
- School of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Collaborating Center of Joanna Briggs Institute, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Best Practice Spotlight Organization, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Dan Yang
- School of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Collaborating Center of Joanna Briggs Institute, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Best Practice Spotlight Organization, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Jiaxin Fang
- School of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Collaborating Center of Joanna Briggs Institute, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Best Practice Spotlight Organization, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Junxin Wang
- School of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Collaborating Center of Joanna Briggs Institute, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Best Practice Spotlight Organization, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Liu Han
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Third Affiliated Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Yufang Hao
- School of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Collaborating Center of Joanna Briggs Institute, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Best Practice Spotlight Organization, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
- Correspondence: Yufang Hao Liangxiang High Education Park, Fangshan District, Beijing, 102488, People’s Republic of ChinaTel +86-13552850210 Email
| |
Collapse
|