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

Decision coaching Program theory Realist review Shared decision making

Journal

BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 10 2022
Historique:
received: 03 12 2021
accepted: 26 09 2022
entrez: 8 10 2022
pubmed: 9 10 2022
medline: 12 10 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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). 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.

Sections du résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36209086
doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-02007-0
pii: 10.1186/s12911-022-02007-0
pmc: PMC9548102
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

265

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Implement Sci. 2020 Sep 21;15(1):81
pubmed: 32957962
Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Mar;100(3):600-604
pubmed: 27780646
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Nov 8;11:CD013385
pubmed: 34749427
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Mar;94(3):291-309
pubmed: 24305642
Int J Nurs Stud. 2019 May;93:141-152
pubmed: 30925280
Psychooncology. 2019 Apr;28(4):702-709
pubmed: 30548890
Support Care Cancer. 2015 May;23(5):1365-75
pubmed: 25351455
JAMA. 2002 Dec 4;288(21):2701-8
pubmed: 12460093
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Feb 2;17(1):32
pubmed: 28148254
Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Dec;77(3):349-59
pubmed: 19819096
BMC Pediatr. 2020 Jan 3;20(1):1
pubmed: 31900152
Med Decis Making. 2020 Apr;40(3):379-398
pubmed: 32428429
Soc Sci Med. 2021 May;277:113900
pubmed: 33838448
Res Nurs Health. 1997 Oct;20(5):377-87
pubmed: 9334792
J Eval Clin Pract. 2020 Apr;26(2):503-514
pubmed: 31750600
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Dec;81(3):355-61
pubmed: 21093194
Med Decis Making. 2012 May-Jun;32(3):E22-33
pubmed: 22505617
Urol Nurs. 2009 Jul-Aug;29(4):249-58
pubmed: 19718941
Int J Nurs Stud. 2018 Apr;80:1-11
pubmed: 29331655
BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417
pubmed: 16908462
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:21-34
pubmed: 16053581
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Apr;41(7):563-7
pubmed: 27018897
BMJ Open. 2014 Jun 23;4(6):e005466
pubmed: 24958211
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jan 23;20(1):59
pubmed: 31973754
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015 Jan 28;15:1
pubmed: 25889846
Ann Fam Med. 2016 Nov;14(6):509-516
pubmed: 28376437
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 12;7(11):e018353
pubmed: 29133330
Res Synth Methods. 2020 Jan;11(1):14-35
pubmed: 31714016
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Dec;89(3):461-6
pubmed: 22305188
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):938-953
pubmed: 33759626
Implement Sci. 2018 Mar 9;13(1):40
pubmed: 29523167
Trials. 2015 Mar 21;16:106
pubmed: 25872529
Cancer Nurs. 1997 Jun;20(3):187-96
pubmed: 9190093
Transl Behav Med. 2013 Jun;3(2):162-71
pubmed: 24073167
Can Oncol Nurs J. 2008 Winter;18(1):6-24
pubmed: 18512565
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015 Feb 07;15:5
pubmed: 25889602
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Dec 06;17(1):160
pubmed: 29212475
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Nov 13;12:130
pubmed: 23148458
BMC Med. 2013 Jan 29;11:21
pubmed: 23360677
Ann Behav Med. 2012 Dec;44(3):320-30
pubmed: 22825933
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2:S11
pubmed: 24624995
BMJ. 2017 Apr 18;357:j1744
pubmed: 28420639
Psychooncology. 2013 May;22(5):1017-24
pubmed: 22570252
J Adv Nurs. 2016 May;72(5):1191-202
pubmed: 26880541
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 May;101(5):872-877
pubmed: 29336860
Fam Pract Manag. 2017 May/Jun;24(3):5-10
pubmed: 28671358
Implement Sci. 2014 Sep 05;9:115
pubmed: 25190100
Trials. 2015 Oct 12;16:452
pubmed: 26458964
Int J Nurs Stud. 2018 Feb;78:26-36
pubmed: 28982479
Diabet Med. 2016 Nov;33(11):1483-1492
pubmed: 27223310
J Adv Nurs. 2019 Nov;75(11):3032-3044
pubmed: 31225666
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Aug 1;68(8):764-770
pubmed: 28457208
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):536-43
pubmed: 18755564
JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Aug;16(8):e703-e725
pubmed: 32208092
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2008;5(1):25-35
pubmed: 18266768

Auteurs

Junqiang Zhao (J)

School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

Janet Jull (J)

School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.

Jeanette Finderup (J)

Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University & Central Region Denmark, Aarhus, Denmark.

Maureen Smith (M)

Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, Ottawa, Canada.

Simone Maria Kienlin (SM)

Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Langnes, Norway.
Department of Medicine and Healthcare, The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Hamar, Norway.

Anne Christin Rahn (AC)

Nursing Research Unit, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.

Sandra Dunn (S)

School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
BORN Ontario, Ottawa, Canada.
Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

Yumi Aoki (Y)

Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke's International University, Tokyo, Japan.

Leanne Brown (L)

School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisban, Australia.

Gillian Harvey (G)

Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.

Dawn Stacey (D)

School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. Dawn.Stacey@uOttawa.ca.
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. Dawn.Stacey@uOttawa.ca.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH