Shared decision making-The cornerstone in person-centred care

Co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching: a mixed methods case study within a review

BACKGROUND

Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis.

RESULTS

We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.

Expert patients leading activities on social justice: towards patient-centered education

BACKGROUND

Social justice is recognized by reputable international organizations as a professional nursing value. However, there are serious doubts as to whether it is embodied in Catalan nursing education.

OBJECTIVES

To explore what nursing students take away from two teaching activities led by expert patients (one presentation and three expert patient illness narratives) on the topics of social justice, patient rights, and person-centered care.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Qualitative study using a content analysis approach. The research plan included (1) think-pair-share activities (additional faculty-assisted presentation and three faculty-assisted, semi-structured scripted narratives); (2) paired reflections; (3) focus groups; and (4) content analysis of paired reflections and focus groups.

PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT

Fourth-year nursing degree students at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Spain. Convenience sampling was used.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The UAB Research Ethics Committee did not deem it necessary to apply any specific measures. We fully explained to patients that they could decide what medical information they would share with the students that was relevant to their learning, and we provided students with guidelines about patient confidentiality, dignity, and respect.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

The students engaged in reflection about their education (recognizing that it had been centered on the professional and not the patient) and their relationship with the patient, in which they reproduced low-involvement patient care by modeling behaviors of their nurse educator. Moreover, they valued a person-centered care model with an emphasis on the emotional part but left out decision-making as an individual right of people.

CONCLUSIONS

The think-pair-share activities were useful to spark self-reflection among students, who identified aspects to change in their own practice, and reflected about their own education process, both of which promote change.

Interventions for Indigenous Peoples making health decisions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making facilitates collaboration between patients and health care providers for informed health decisions. Our review identified interventions to support Indigenous Peoples making health decisions. The objectives were to synthesize evidence and identify factors that impact the use of shared decision making interventions.

METHODS

An Inuit and non-Inuit team of service providers and academic researchers used an integrated knowledge translation approach with framework synthesis to coproduce a systematic review. We developed a conceptual framework to organize and describe the shared decision making processes and guide identification of studies that describe interventions to support Indigenous Peoples making health decisions. We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases from September 2012 to March 2022, with a grey literature search. Two independent team members screened and quality appraised included studies for strengths and relevance of studies' contributions to shared decision making and Indigenous self-determination. Findings were analyzed descriptively in relation to the conceptual framework and reported using guidelines to ensure transparency and completeness in reporting and for equity-oriented systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Of 5068 citations screened, nine studies reported in ten publications were eligible for inclusion. We categorized the studies into clusters identified as: those inclusive of Indigenous knowledges and governance ("Indigenous-oriented")(n = 6); and those based on Western academic knowledge and governance ("Western-oriented")(n = 3). The studies were found to be of variable quality for contributions to shared decision making and self-determination, with Indigenous-oriented studies of higher quality overall than Western-oriented studies. Four themes are reflected in an updated conceptual framework: 1) where shared decision making takes place impacts decision making opportunities, 2) little is known about the characteristics of health care providers who engage in shared decision making processes, 3) community is a partner in shared decision making, 4) the shared decision making process involves trust-building.

CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies that report on and evaluate shared decision making interventions with Indigenous Peoples. Overall, Indigenous-oriented studies sought to make health care systems more amenable to shared decision making for Indigenous Peoples, while Western-oriented studies distanced shared decision making from the health care settings. Further studies that are solutions-focused and support Indigenous self-determination are needed.