Shared decision making or paternalism in nursing consultations? A qualitative study of primary care asthma nurses' views on sharing decisions with patients regarding inhaler device selection

Oral Mucosa in Cancer Patients-Putting the Pieces Together: A Narrative Review and New Perspectives

The oral mucosa is a key player in cancer patients and during cancer treatment. The increasing prevalence of cancer and cancer-therapy-associated side effects are behind the major role that oral mucosa plays in oncological patients. Oral mucositis is a debilitating severe complication caused by the early toxicity of chemo and/or radiotherapy that can restrict treatment outcome possibilities, even challenging a patient's survival. It has been referred to as the most feared cancer treatment complication. Predictive variables as to who will be affected, and to what extent, are still unclear. Additionally, oral mucositis is one of the sources of the increasing economic burden of cancer, not only for patients and their families but also for institutions and governments. All efforts should be implemented in the search for new approaches to minimize the apparently ineluctable outburst of oral mucositis during cancer treatment. New perspectives derived from different approaches to explaining the interrelation between oral mucositis and the oral microbiome or the similarities with genitourinary mucosa may help elucidate the biomolecular pathways and mechanisms behind oral mucosa cancer-therapy-related toxicity, and what is more important is its management in order to minimize treatment side effects and provide enhanced cancer support.

Inhalation Devices in 7- to 15-Year-Old Children with Asthma - A Patient Preference Study

Background

Inhalation therapy is the cornerstone of treatment of bronchial asthma. A patient-specific selection of inhalation devices is necessary, as preference for a device plays an important role in terms of error rates in handling and adherence to therapy. However, there is no industry-independent study providing information on children's preferences for common inhaler types. The aim of the present study was to investigate the preference of asthmatic children for inhaler types commonly used in Germany. The effects of age, gender and the type of school visited on device preferences as well as the frequency of patient education and the role of health care providers in the choice for an inhaler were investigated.

Methods

Eighty children were included in this prospective cross-sectional study (age: 10.87 ± 2.62 years). The analysis was based on a questionnaire and validated checklists. All participants tested the use of nine placebo inhalers (Breezhaler, Diskus, Respimat, Spiromax, Turbohaler, Autohaler, metered-dose inhaler, Easyhaler and Novolizer) in a randomized order. For each device, patients were asked to assess handling, rate different device characteristics and name the device they would prefer most or least.

Results

The most favored device was the Novolizer. Moreover, the Spiromax scored highest in numerous categories such as suitability in emergencies and "easiest" device to use. Patient preferences with respect to the addressed inhaler features were not significantly related to age, gender or school type.

Conclusion

The Novolizer and the Spiromax showed higher preference in pediatric patients as compared to other tested devices. Overall, there were significant differences in terms of preference when comparing the tested inhalers in different aspects.

Improved inhaler handling after repeated inhalation guidance for elderly patients with bronchial asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Accurate evaluation of inhaler handling is essential for improved treatment of bronchial asthma (BA) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Many studies have described the correlation between age, inhalation guidance, and procedure improvement. Elderly patients should receive proper inhalation guidance. This was a retrospective open cohort study conducted at a single hospital with outpatient open pharmacies that provided inhalation guidance to patients of BA and COPD. A total of 525 cases were included in the study. The median age was 71 years with no significant difference between genders (males: 71 ± 16.0 years; females: 72 ± 16.1 years; P = .24). There were 226 males (43.0%) and 299 females (57.0%; P = .03). BA was significantly more prevalent than COPD (P < .001). There was no significant difference in dry powder inhaler (DPI) and pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) visits in those <60 years of age (P = .23). pMDI was used significantly more often than DPI in those aged 60 to 90 years of age (P < .001). In both <70 and >70 years of age, the most common error with DPI use was improper inhalation speed, which reduced (improved) at the third visit. Gargling errors were most common with DPI use at the second visit and with pMDI at the first visit in both age groups, which subsequently reduced rapidly. Continuous repeated guidance steadily and significantly decreased errors with all devices (P < .001 for DPI, pMDI, and soft mist inhaler). Elderly cases (>70 years of age) should undergo continuous repeated guidance to reduce inhalation errors like inhalation speed and gargling errors.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Hospitalization Decisions and Shared Decision-Making in Bronchiolitis

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to elicit clinicians' and parents' perspectives about decision-making related to hospitalization for children with bronchiolitis and the use of shared decision-making (SDM) to guide these decisions.

METHODS

We conducted individual, semistructured interviews with purposively sampled clinicians (pediatric emergency medicine physicians and nurses) at 2 children's hospitals and parents of children age <2 years with bronchiolitis evaluated in the emergency department at 1 hospital. Interviews elicited clinicians' and parents' perspectives on decision-making and SDM for bronchiolitis. We conducted an inductive analysis following the principles of grounded theory until data saturation was reached for both groups.

RESULTS

We interviewed 24 clinicians (17 physicians, 7 nurses) and 20 parents. Clinicians identified factors in 3 domains that contribute to hospitalization decision-making for children with bronchiolitis: demographics, clinical factors, and social-emotional factors. Although many clinicians supported using SDM for hospitalization decisions, most reported using a clinician-guided decision-making process in practice. Clinicians also identified several barriers to SDM, including the unpredictable course of bronchiolitis, perceptions of parents' preferences for engaging in SDM, and parents' emotions, health literacy, preferred language, and comfort with discharge. Parents wanted the opportunity to express their opinions during decision-making about hospitalization, although they often felt comfortable with the clinician's decision when adequately informed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although clinicians and parents of children with bronchiolitis are supportive of SDM, most hospitalization decision-making is clinician guided. Future investigation should evaluate how to address barriers and implement SDM in practice, including training clinicians in this SDM approach.

Patients' perception of their involvement in shared treatment decision making: Key factors in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to characterize the relationships between the quality of the information given by the physician, the involvement of the patient in shared decision making (SDM), and outcomes in terms of satisfaction and anxiety pertaining to the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

A Web survey was conducted among 200 Canadian patients affected with IBD. The theoretical model of SDM was adjusted using path analysis. SAS software was used for all statistical analyses.

RESULTS

The quality of the knowledge transfer between the physician and the patient is significantly associated with the components of SDM: information comprehension, patient involvement and decision certainty about the chosen treatment. In return, patient involvement in SDM is significantly associated with higher satisfaction and, as a result, lower anxiety as regards treatment selection.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the importance of involving patients in shared treatment decision making in the context of IBD.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Understanding shared decision making may motivate patients to be more active in understanding the relevant information for treatment selection, as it is related to their level of satisfaction, anxiety and adherence to treatment. This relationship should encourage physicians to promote shared decision making.

Shared Decision-Making for Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making has received national and international interest by providers, educators, researchers, and policy makers. The literature on shared decision-making is extensive, dealing with the individual components of shared decision-making rather than a comprehensive process. This view of shared decision-making leaves healthcare providers to wonder how to integrate shared decision-making into practice.

OBJECTIVE

To understand shared decision-making as a comprehensive process from the perspective of the patient and provider in all healthcare settings.

METHODS

An integrative review was conducted applying a systematic approach involving a literature search, data evaluation, and data analysis. The search included articles from PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO from 1970 through 2016. Articles included quantitative experimental and non-experimental designs, qualitative, and theoretical articles about shared decision-making between all healthcare providers and patients in all healthcare settings.

RESULTS

Fifty-two papers were included in this integrative review. Three categories emerged from the synthesis: (a) communication/ relationship building; (b) working towards a shared decision; and (c) action for shared decision-making. Each major theme contained sub-themes represented in the proposed visual representation for shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive understanding of shared decision-making between the nurse and the patient was identified. A visual representation offers a guide that depicts shared decision-making as a process taking place during a healthcare encounter with implications for the continuation of shared decisions over time offering patients an opportunity to return to the nurse for reconsiderations of past shared decisions.

The Patient Experience With Shared Decision Making: A Qualitative Descriptive Study

Shared decision making is a process characterized by a partnership between a nurse and a patient. The existence of a relationship does not ensure shared decision making. Little is known about what nurses need to know and do for this experience to take place. A qualitative descriptive study was implemented using Coalizzi's method. Semistructured interviews were held with patients, and 3 themes were uncovered. The findings suggest that a nurse's conduct aimed at drawing patients in and inviting them to participate in a conversation leads toward shared decisions. Infusion nurses may find this information useful as they engage their patients in shared decisions.

Mapping the Asthma Care Process: Implications for Research and Practice

BACKGROUND

Whether people with asthma gain and maintain control over their condition depends not only on the availability of effective drugs, but also on multiple patient and health care professional (HCP) behaviors. Research in asthma rarely considers how these behaviors interact with each other and drug effectiveness to determine health outcomes, which may limit real-life applicability of findings.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to develop a logic process model (Asthma Care Model; ACM) that explains how patient and HCP behaviors impact on the asthma care process.

METHODS

Within a European research project on asthma (ASTRO-LAB), we reviewed asthma care guidelines and empirical literature, and conducted qualitative interviews with patients and HCPs. Findings were discussed with the project team and respiratory care experts and integrated in a causal model.

RESULTS

The model outlines a causal sequence of treatment events, from diagnosis and assessment to treatment prescription, drug exposure, and health outcomes. The relationships between these components are moderated by patient behaviors (medication adherence, symptom monitoring, managing triggers, and exacerbations) and HCP behaviors (medical care and self-management support). Modifiable and nonmodifiable behavioral determinants influence the behaviors of patients and HCPs. The model is dynamic as it includes feedback loops of behavioral and clinical outcomes, which influence future patient and HCP decision making. Key evidence for each relationship is summarized to derive research priorities and clinical recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACM model is of interest to both researchers and practitioners, and intended as a first version (ACM-v1) of a common framework for generating and translating research evidence in asthma care.

Venous access: the patient experience

INTRODUCTION

The evolution of venous access via peripheral cannulation, particularly in relation to the risks and the benefits of this procedure, is reported widely in the literature. However, there is limited research specific to the patient experience of undergoing venous access.

AIM

The intent of this qualitative study was to understand patients' experience of venous access, with the aim of bringing forth their voices about the experiences of repeated venous access/cannulation attempts.

METHODOLOGY

This qualitative study used a hermeneutic phenomenological approach to explore the experiences of 15 participants in two rural oncology units in Australia. The participants had experienced repeated peripheral cannulation in order to receive chemotherapy. Study participants were asked to describe what it was like for them to be repeatedly cannulated. Data were collected via audiotaped individual interviews, the participants' stories were transcribed and analysed thematically.

OUTCOMES

Themes emerged from the participants' stories that provided insights into their perceptions of the experience of being cannulated and the decision-making processes regarding how and where the procedure occurred. The findings suggest that a holistic approach to care was often missing causing the participants to feel vulnerable. Gaining insight into their experiences led to a greater understanding of the impact of this procedure on patients and the need to improve care through encouraging more collaborative decision-making processes between clinicians and patients.

CONCLUSION

The implications for policy and practice focus on improving patient outcomes via procedural governance and education, with the intent of translating the findings from this research into evidence-based practice.

Health professionals' perceptions regarding family witnessed resuscitation in adult critical care settings

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To deepen our understanding of the perceptions of health professionals regarding family witnessed resuscitation in Jordanian adult critical care settings.

BACKGROUND

The issue of family witnessed resuscitation has developed dramatically in the last three decades. The traditional practice of excluding family members during cardiopulmonary resuscitation had been questioned. Family witnessed resuscitation has been described as good practice by many researchers and health organisations. However, family witnessed resuscitation has been perceived by some practitioners to be unhealthy and harmful to the life-saving process. The literature showed that there are no policies or guidelines to allow or to prevent family witnessed resuscitation in Jordan.

DESIGN

An exploratory qualitative design was adopted.

METHODS

A purposive sample of 31 health professionals from several disciplines was recruited over a period of six months. Individual semi-structured interviews were used. These interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

It was found that most healthcare professionals were against family witnessed resuscitation. They raised several concerns related to being verbally and physically attacked if they allowed family witnessed resuscitation. Almost all of the respondents expressed their fears of patients' family members' interfering in their work. Most of the participants in this study stated that family witnessed resuscitation is traumatic for family members. This was viewed as a barrier to allowing family witnessed resuscitation in Jordanian critical care settings.

CONCLUSION

The study provides a unique understanding of Jordanian health professionals' perceptions regarding family witnessed resuscitation. They raised some views that contest some arguments in the broader literature. Further research with patients, family members, health professionals and policy makers is still required.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This is the first study about family witnessed resuscitation in Jordan. Considering multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals' views would be helpful when starting to implement this practice in Jordanian hospitals.

Case typologies, chronic illness and primary health care

RATIONALE AND AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

When assessing patients, clinicians use typologies developed through their own particular clinical experience. Our aim was to develop a typology, based on the patient's perspective and not specific to one illness, with the potential to enhance person-centred clinical follow-up of those living with chronic illness.

METHODS

We applied the qualitative comparative method of analysis to interview data from 37 people living with type 2 diabetes or with chronic back pain, recruited from UK General Practices. Informed by theory on time and complexity, analysis focused on the ongoing adjustments made by individuals living with chronic illness (their dynamic) in current time. Health professionals (n = 20) and people living with diabetes or living with back pain (n = 14) refined and validated the typology in five focus groups.

RESULTS

We identified the following types of dynamic: past reminders, stuck and struggling, becalmed, and submerged. Among interviewees who provided data at different time points, we found some transformed from one dynamic type to another.

CONCLUSION

This typology may aid personalization of treatment decisions and could be extended to other chronic illness.

Exploring telemonitoring and self-management by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a qualitative study embedded in a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore patient and professional views on self-management in the context of telemonitoring in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with patients with COPD and healthcare professionals participating in a randomized controlled trial of telemonitoring in Lothian, Scotland, explored experiences of using telemonitoring, and dynamics in patient-practitioner relationships. Transcribed data were analyzed using the Framework approach.

RESULTS

38 patients (mean age 67.5 years) and 32 professionals provided 70 interviews. Patients considered that telemonitoring empowered self-management by enhancing their understanding of COPD and providing additional justification for their decisions to adjust treatment or seek professional advice. Professionals discussed telemonitoring as promoting compliance with medical advice and encouraged patients to exercise personal responsibility within clinical parameters, but expressed concerns about promoting the sick role and creating dependence on telemonitoring.

CONCLUSION

Telemonitoring assisted many patients to embrace greater responsibility for their health but the model of service provision remained clinician-centered. A medical model of 'compliant self-management' may paradoxically have promoted dependence on professionals.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patients and professionals shared responsibility for meeting the central objective of prompt management of exacerbations of COPD. Care is needed, however, to minimize the risk in some patients, of telemonitoring increasing dependence on practitioner support.

Implementation of shared decision making in physical therapy: observed level of involvement and patient preference

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) reduces the asymmetrical power between the therapist and the patient. Patient involvement improves patient satisfaction, adherence, and health outcomes and is a prerequisite for good clinical practice. The opportunities for using SDM in physical therapy have been previously considered.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the status of SDM in physical therapy, patients' preferred levels of involvement, and the agreement between therapist perception and patient preferred level of involvement.

DESIGN

This was an observational study of real consultations in physical therapy.

METHODS

In total, 237 consultations, undertaken by 13 physical therapists, were audiorecorded, and 210 records were analyzed using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) instrument. Before the consultation, the patient and therapist completed the Control Preference Scale (CPS). Multilevel analysis was used to study the association between individual variables and the level of SDM. Agreement on preferences was calculated using kappa coefficients.

RESULTS

The mean OPTION score was 5.2 (SD=6.8), out of a total score of 100. Female therapists achieved a higher OPTION score (b=-0.86, P=0.01). In total, 36.7% of the patients wanted to share decisions, and 36.2% preferred to give their opinion before delegating the decisions. In the majority of cases, therapists believed that they had to decide. The kappa coefficient for agreement was poor at .062 (95% confidence interval=-.018 to .144).

LIMITATIONS

Only 13 out of 125 therapists who were personally contacted agreed to participate.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision making was not applied; although patients preferred to share decisions or at least provide their opinion about the treatment, physical therapists did not often recognize this factor. The participating physical therapists were more likely to make decisions in the best interest of their patients; that is, these therapists tended to apply a paternalistic approach rather than involving the patient.

Doctors' understanding of individualisation of drug treatments: a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVE

To explore doctors' understanding of individualisation of drug treatments, and identify the methods used to achieve individualisation.

DESIGN

In this exploratory study, we used in-depth qualitative interviews with doctors to gain insight into their understanding of the term 'individualised treatments' and the methods that they use to achieve it.

PARTICIPANTS

16 general practitioners in 6 rural and 10 urban practices, 2 geriatricians and 2 clinical academics were recruited.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care in South West of England.

RESULTS

Understanding of individualisation varied between doctors, and their initial descriptions of individualisation were not always consistent with subsequent examples of the patients they had treated. Understandings of, and methods used to achieve, individualised treatment were frequently discussed in relation to making drug treatment decisions. Few doctors spoke of using strategies to support patients to individualise their own treatments after the consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its widespread use, variation in doctors' understanding of the term individualisation highlights the need for it to be defined. Efforts are needed to develop effective methods that would offer a structured approach to support patients to manage their treatments after consultations.

A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize the best available evidence related to the meaningfulness of internal and external influences on shared-decision making for adult patients and health care providers in all health care settings.The specific questions to be answered are: BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care is emphasized in today's healthcare arena. This emphasis is seen in the works of the International Alliance of Patients' Organizations (IAOP) who describe patient-centered healthcare as care that is aimed at addressing the needs and preferences of patients. The IAOP presents five principles which are foundational to the achievement of patient-centered healthcare: respect, choice, policy, access and support, as well as information. These five principles are further described as:Within the description of these five principles the idea of shared decision-making is clearly evident.The concept of shared decision-making began to appear in the literature in the 1990s. It is defined as a "process jointly shared by patients and their health care provider. It aims at helping patients play an active role in decisions concerning their health, which is the ultimate goal of patient-centered care." The details of the shared decision-making process are complex and consist of a series of steps including:Three overall representative decision-making models are noted in contemporary literature. These three models include: paternalistic, informed decision-making, and shared decision-making. The paternalistic model is an autocratic style of decision-making where the healthcare provider carries out the care from the perspective of knowing what is best for the patient and therefore makes all decisions. The informed decision-making model takes place as the information needed to make decisions is conveyed to the patient and the patient makes the decisions without the healthcare provider involvement. Finally, the shared decision-making model is representative of a sharing and a negotiation towards treatment decisions. Thus, these models represent a range with patient non-participation at one end of the continuum to informed decision making or a high level of patient power at the other end. Several shared decision-making models focus on the process of shared decision-making previously noted. A discussion of several process models follows below.Charles et al. depicts a process model of shared decision-making that identifies key characteristics that must be in evidence. The patient shares in the responsibility with the healthcare provider in this model. The key characteristics included:This model illustrates that there must be at least two individuals participating, however, family and friends may be involved in a variety of roles such as the collector of information, the interpreter of this information, coach, advisor, negotiator, and caretaker. This model also depicts the need to take steps to participate in the shared decision-making process. To take steps means that there is an agreement between and among all involved that shared decision-making is necessary and preferred. Research about patient preferences, however, offers divergent views. The link between patient preferences for shared decision-making and the actuality of shared decision-making in practice is not strong. Research concerning patients and patient preferences on shared decision-making points to variations depending on age, education, socio-economic status, culture, and diagnosis. Healthcare providers may also hold preferences for shared decision-making; however, research in this area is not as comprehensive as is patient focused research. Elwyn et al. explored the views of general practice providers on involving patients in decisions. Both positive and negative views were identified ranging from receptive, noting potential benefits, to concern for the unrealistic nature of participation and sharing in the decision-making process. An example of this potential difficulty, from a healthcare provider perspective, is identifying the potential conflict that may develop when a patient's preference is different from clinical practice guidelines. This is further exemplified in healthcare encounters when a situation may not yield itself to a clear answer but rather lies in a grey area. These situations are challenging for healthcare providers.The notion of information sharing as a prerequisite to shared decision-making offers insight into another process. The healthcare provider must provide the patient the information that they need to know and understand in order to even consider and participate in the shared decision-making process. This information may include the disease, potential treatments, consequences of those treatments, and any alternatives, which may include the decision to do nothing. Without knowing this information the patient will not be able to participate in the shared decision-making process. The complexity of this step is realized if one considers what the healthcare provider needs to know in order to first assess what the patient knows and does not know, the readiness of the patient to participate in this educational process and learn the information, as well as, the individual learning styles of the patient taking into consideration the patient's ideas, values, beliefs, education, culture, literacy, and age. Depending on the results of this assessment the health care provider then must communicate the information to the patient. This is also a complex process that must take into consideration the relationship, comfort level, and trust between the healthcare provider and the patient.Finally, the treatment decision is reached between both the healthcare provider and the patient. Charles et al. portrays shared decision-making as a process with the end product, the shared decision, as the outcome. This outcome may be a decision as to the agreement of a treatment decision, no agreement reached as to a treatment decision, and disagreement as to a treatment decision. Negotiation is a part of the process as the "test of a shared decision (as distinct from the decision-making process) is if both parties agree on the treatment option."Towle and Godolphin developed a process model that further exemplifies the role of the healthcare provider and the patient in the shared decision-making process as mutual partners with mutual responsibilities. The capacity to engage in this shared decision-making rests, therefore, on competencies including knowledge, skills, and abilities for both the healthcare provider and the patient. This mutual partnership and the corresponding competencies are presented for both the healthcare provider and the patient in this model. The competencies noted for the healthcare provider for shared decision making include:Patient competencies include:This model illustrates the shared decision-making process with emphasis on the role of the healthcare provider and the patient very similar to the prior model. This model, however, gives greater emphasis to the process of the co-participation of the healthcare provider and the patient. The co-participation depicts a mutual partnership with mutual responsibilities that can be seen as "reciprocal relationships of dialogue." For this to take place the relationship between and among the participants of the shared decision-making process is important along with other internal and external influences such as communication, trust, mutual respect, honesty, time, continuity, and commitment. Cultural, social, and age group differences; evidence; and team and family are considered within this model.Elwyn et al. presents yet another model that depicts the shared decision-making process; however, this model offers a view where the healthcare provider holds greater responsibility in this process. In this particular model the process focuses on the healthcare provider and the essential skills needed to engage the patient in shard decisions. The competencies outlined in this model include:The healthcare provider must demonstrate knowledge, competencies, and skills as a communicator. The skills for communication competency require the healthcare provider to be able to elicit the patient's thoughts and input regarding treatment management throughout the consultation. The healthcare provider must also demonstrate competencies in assessment skills beyond physical assessment that includes the ability to assess the patient's perceptions and readiness to participate. In addition, the healthcare provider must be able to assess the patient's readiness to learn the information that the patient needs to know in order to fully engage in the shared decision-making process, assess what the patient already knows, what the patient does not know, and whether or not the information that the patient knows is accurate. Once this assessment is completed the healthcare provider then must draw on his/her knowledge, competencies, and skills necessary to teach the patient what the patient needs to know to be informed. This facilitates the notion of the tailor-made information noted previously. The healthcare provider also requires competencies in how to check and evaluate the entire process to ensure that the patient does understand and accept with comfort not only the plan being negotiated but the entire process of sharing in decision-making. In addition to the above, there are further competencies such as competence in working with groups and teams, competencies in terms of cultural knowledge, competencies with regard to negotiation skills, as well as, competencies when faced with ethical challenges.Shared decision-making has been associated with autonomy, empowerment, and effectiveness and efficiency. Both patients and health care providers have noted improvement in relationships and improved interactions when shared decision-making is in evidence. Along with this improved relationship and interaction enhanced compliance is noted. Additional research points to patient satisfaction and enhanced quality of life. There is some evidence to suggest that shared decision-making does facilitate positive health outcomes.In today's healthcare environment there is greater emphasis on patient-centered care that exemplifies patient engagement, participation, partnership, and shared decision-making. Given the shift from the more autocratic delivery of care to the shared approach there is a need to more fully understand the what of shared decision-making as well as how shared decision-making takes place along with what internal and external influences may encourage, support, and facilitate the shared decision-making process. These influences are intervening variables that may be of significance for the successful development of practice-based strategies that may foster shared decision-making in practice. The purpose of this qualitative systematic review is to identify internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.A preliminary search of the Joanna Briggs Library of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PROSPERO did not identify any previously conducted qualitative systematic reviews on the meaningfulness of internal and external influences on shared decision-making.

Understanding what helps or hinders asthma action plan use: a systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative literature

OBJECTIVE

To understand better what helps and/or hinders asthma action plan use from the professionals and patients/carers perspective.

METHODS

Systematic review and qualitative synthesis (using meta-ethnography).

RESULTS

Nineteen studies (20 papers) were included in an analysis of patients/carers' and professionals' views. Seven main influences on action plan implementation were identified including perceived un-helpfulness and irrelevance of the plans. Translation and synthesis of the original authors' interpretations suggested that action plan promotion and use was influenced by professional and patient/carers' asthma beliefs and attitudes and patient/carer experiences of managing asthma. Action plan use is hindered because professionals and patients/carers have different explanatory models of asthma, its management and their respective roles in the management process. Patients/carers, based on their experiential knowledge of their condition, perceive themselves as capable, effective in managing their asthma, but health professionals do not always share this view.

CONCLUSION

Professionally provided medically focused action plans that do not 'fit' with and incorporate the patients'/carers' views of asthma, and their management strategies, will continue to be under-utilised.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Professionals need to develop a more patient-centred, partnership-based, approach to the joint development and review of action plans, recognising the experiential asthma knowledge of patients/carers.