Decision coaching to prepare patients for making health decisions - a systematic review of decision coaching in trials of patient decision aids

Stacey, Dawn; Kryworuchko, Jennifer; Bennett, Claudine T.; Murray, Mary; Mullan, Sarah; Légaré, France

doi:10.1097/01258363-201109000-00089

Cited by 53 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] There are relatively few evaluated interventions, and their use tends to be restricted to decision specific research settings (such as preparation for a cancer consultation), but they offer a platform for designing further interventions. The earliest example was developed in 1985 and aimed to alter the traditional patient role through decision coaching before the appointment.…”

Section: How To Overcome Passivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Power imbalance prevents shared decision making

Joseph‐Williams

Edwards

Elwyn

2014

BMJ

162

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: How To Overcome Passivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Power imbalance prevents shared decision making

Joseph‐Williams

Edwards

Elwyn

2014

BMJ

162

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, some programs have empowered screening coordinators to perform shared decision making (30). Health educators may help engage patients in shared decision making (31). Of note, CMS requires that shared decision making occur during an inperson visit with a physician, midlevel provider, or clinical nurse specialist (Table 3) (12).…”

Section: American Thoracic Society Documentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Policy Statement: Implementation of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Programs in Clinical Practice

Wiener¹,

Gould²,

Arenberg³

et al. 2015

Am J Respir Crit Care Med

208

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale: Annual low-radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals and is now recommended by multiple organizations. However, LDCT screening is complex, and implementation requires careful planning to ensure benefits outweigh harms. Little guidance has been provided for sites wishing to develop and implement lung cancer screening programs.Objectives: To promote successful implementation of comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe, effective, and sustainable.Methods: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) convened a committee with expertise in lung cancer screening, pulmonary nodule evaluation, and implementation science. The committee reviewed the evidence from systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, surveys, and the experience of early-adopting LDCT screening programs and summarized potential strategies to implement LDCT screening programs successfully. Measurements and Main Results:We address steps that sites should consider during the main three phases of developing an LDCT screening program: planning, implementation, and maintenance. We present multiple strategies to implement the nine core elements of comprehensive lung cancer screening programs enumerated in a recent CHEST/ATS statement, which will allow sites to select the strategy that best fits with their local context and workflow patterns. Although we do not comment on cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening, we outline the necessary costs associated with starting and sustaining a high-quality LDCT screening program.Conclusions: Following the strategies delineated in this policy statement may help sites to develop comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe and effective.

show abstract

“…Decision support interventions, like decision counselling or decision coaching, are tools designed to help patients to participate in specific and deliberated decision making among health-related options. They help patients to recognize the values-sensitive nature of the decision and to clarify, either implicitly or explicitly, the value they place on the benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainties [64,65].…”

Section: Practicalities To Consider In Oncofertility Consultationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fertility preservation in cancer patients: The global framework

Linkeviciute

Boniolo

Chiavari

et al. 2014

Cancer Treatment Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer treatment is the most frequent cause of reduced fertility in cancer patients, with up to 80% of survivors affected. None of the established or experimental fertility preservation methods can assure parenthood; instead it may provide a future opportunity to overcome treatment induced sterility. Previous research demonstrated that fertility counselling has clinical and psychological benefit. Therefore, such patient services are recommended by internationally recognized guidelines. Around 70-75% of young cancer survivors in retrospective studies are reported to desire parenthood but the numbers of patients who use fertility preservation services prior treatment are significantly lower. Moreover, despite existing guidelines healthcare professionals worldwide lack practical knowledge and have personal biases which prevent addressing fertility preservation issues adequately. Surveys of healthcare professionals report the following barriers: lack of time and knowledge about existing options, poor prognosis, and delay in treatment, patient's age, partnership status, existing children, sexual orientation and socioeconomic situation. Moreover, fertility preservation consultation is not limited to medical aspects. Patient's fears, expectations and priorities shaped by personal values have to be addressed in a light of medical necessities, realistic survival prognosis, socio-cultural environment and availability of resources. We call for a need of framework for patient centred fertility counselling with a proposal that such framework should include support in decision making which would help patients to understand medical aspects of their cancer, realistic fertility preservation options, identify their preferences based on personal values and goals. Optional support services could also include legal guidance, psychological and spiritual support and financial counselling.

show abstract

Decision coaching to prepare patients for making health decisions - a systematic review of decision coaching in trials of patient decision aids

Cited by 53 publications

References 0 publications

Power imbalance prevents shared decision making

Power imbalance prevents shared decision making

An Official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Policy Statement: Implementation of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Programs in Clinical Practice

Fertility preservation in cancer patients: The global framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About