Coaching to support men in making informed choices about prostate cancer screening: A qualitative study

Barriers and facilitators of shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening in primary care: A systematic review

Objective

To identify barriers and facilitators of the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) on PSA testing in primary care.

Design

Systematic review of articles.

Data sources

PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science.

Eligibility criteria

Original studies published in English or Spanish that assessed the barriers to and facilitators of SDM before PSA testing in primary care were included. No time restrictions were applied.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two review authors screened the titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion, and assessed the quality of the included studies. A thematic synthesis of the results were performed and developed a framework. Quality assessment of the studies was based on three checklists: STROBE for quantitative cross-sectional studies, GUIDED for intervention studies and SRQR for qualitative studies.

Results

The search returned 431 articles, of which we included 13: five cross-sectional studies, two intervention studies, five qualitative studies and one mixed methods study. The identified barriers included lack of time (healthcare professionals), lack of knowledge (healthcare professionals and patients), and preestablished beliefs (patients). The identified facilitators included decision-making training for professionals, education for patients and healthcare professionals, and dissemination of information.

Conclusions

SDM implementation in primary care seems to be a recent field. Many of the barriers identified are modifiable, and the facilitators can be leveraged to strengthen the implementation of SDM.

Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review

Background

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a trained healthcare provider to help people prepare to actively participate in making healthcare decisions. This study aimed to understand how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions.

Methods

We followed the realist review methodology for this study. This study was built on a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness of decision coaching interventions for people facing healthcare decisions. It involved six iterative steps: (1) develop the initial program theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) select, appraise, and prioritize studies; (4) extract and organize data; (5) synthesize evidence; and (6) consult stakeholders and draw conclusions.

Results

We developed an initial program theory based on decision coaching theories and stakeholder feedback. Of the 2594 citations screened, we prioritized 27 papers for synthesis based on their relevance rating. To refine the program theory, we identified 12 context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Essential mechanisms for decision coaching to be initiated include decision coaches’, patients’, and clinicians’ commitments to patients’ involvement in decision making and decision coaches’ knowledge and skills (four CMOs). CMOs during decision coaching are related to the patient (i.e., willing to confide, perceiving their decisional needs are recognized, acquiring knowledge, feeling supported), and the patient-decision coach interaction (i.e., exchanging information, sharing a common understanding of patient’s values) (five CMOs). After decision coaching, the patient’s progress in making or implementing a values-based preferred decision can be facilitated by the decision coach’s advocacy for the patient, and the patient’s deliberation upon options (two CMOs). Leadership support enables decision coaches to have access to essential resources to fulfill their role (one CMOs).

Discussion

In the refined program theory, decision coaching works when there is strong leadership support and commitment from decision coaches, clinicians, and patients. Decision coaches need to be capable in coaching, encourage patients’ participation, build a trusting relationship with patients, and act as a liaison between patients and clinicians to facilitate patients’ progress in making or implementing an informed values-based preferred option. More empirical studies, especially qualitative and process evaluation studies, are needed to further refine the program theory.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-02007-0.