You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 13, Issue 11
  • Determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate informed values-based decision-making: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

Article Text

Article menu
Patient-centred medicine
Protocol
Determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate informed values-based decision-making: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review
  1. Birte Berger-Höger1,
  2. Krystina B Lewis2,3,
  3. Katherine Cherry4,
  4. Jeanette Finderup5,6,
  5. Janet Gunderson7,
  6. Jana Kaden1,
  7. Simone Kienlin8,9,
  8. Anne C Rahn10,
  9. Lindsey Sikora11,
  10. Dawn Stacey2,3,
  11. Anke Steckelberg12,
  12. Junqiang Zhao2
  1. 1Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, Faculty 11 Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
  2. 2School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4Department of Nephrology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Melbourne, Australia
  5. 5Department of Renal Medicine and Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
  6. 6Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University & Central Region, Aarhus, Denmark
  7. 7Patient partner with the Saskatchewan Centre for Patient-Oriented Research and the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research's (SPOR) Chronic Pain Network, Cochrane, and the Evidence Alliance. Committee member for the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, Saskatchewan, Western Canada, Canada
  8. 8Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Langnes, Norway
  9. 9Department of Medicine and Healthcare, South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Hamar, Norway
  10. 10Nursing Research Unit, Institute for Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
  11. 11Health Sciences Library, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  12. 12Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, Martin-Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr Birte Berger-Höger; birte.berger-hoeger{at}uni-bremen.de

Abstract

Introduction Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients’ involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use.

Methods and analysis We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane’ Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.

Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42022338299.

  • Decision Making
  • Patient Participation
  • Systematic Review
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071478

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • BB-H and KBL are joint first authors.

    • Contributors BB-H and KBL contributed equally to this paper. Both conceived the study design and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. LS was responsible for the development of the search strategy. KC, JF, JG, JK, SK, ACR, DS, AS and JZ read the manuscript and made substantive contributions to the design and revision of the manuscript. All authors have approved the final manuscript and agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved and the resolution documented in the literature.

    • Funding Open Access funding enabled and organised by Project DEAL.

    • Disclaimer The funder had no influence on the content of the article.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods and analysis section for further details.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.