-
Tytuł:
-
Shared decision making in breast cancer screening guidelines: a systematic review of their quality and reporting.
-
Autorzy:
-
Maes-Carballo M; Department of General Surgery, Complexo Hospitalario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain.; Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.; Department of General Surgery, Hospital Público de Verín, Ourense, Spain.
Moreno-Asencio T; Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain.
Martín-Díaz M; Department of General Surgery, Hospital de Motril, Granada, Spain.
Mignini L; Unidad de Mastología de Grupo Oroño, Rosario, Argentina.
Bueno-Cavanillas A; Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.; CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.; Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria IBS, Granada, Spain.
Khan KS; Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.; CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
-
Źródło:
-
European journal of public health [Eur J Public Health] 2021 Oct 11; Vol. 31 (4), pp. 873-883.
-
Typ publikacji:
-
Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Systematic Review
-
Język:
-
English
-
Imprint Name(s):
-
Publication: Oxford : Oxford University Press
Original Publication: Stockholm, Sweden : Almqvist & Wiksell International, c1991-
-
MeSH Terms:
-
Breast Neoplasms*/diagnosis
Decision Making, Shared*
Decision Making ; Early Detection of Cancer ; Female ; Humans ; Patient Participation ; Patient-Centered Care
-
Entry Date(s):
-
Date Created: 20210620 Date Completed: 20211110 Latest Revision: 20211110
-
Update Code:
-
20240104
-
DOI:
-
10.1093/eurpub/ckab084
-
PMID:
-
34148093
-
Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a key component of evidence-based and patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to systematically review the quality of SDM proposals in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) concerning breast cancer (BC) screening.
Methods: Guidances were identified, without language restrictions, using a prospectively planned systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and guideline websites) from January 2010 to August 2020. Duplicate data extraction used a 31-item SDM quality assessment tool; reviewer agreement was 98%.
Results: SDM appeared only in 38 (49.4%) (33/68 CPGs, 4/9 CSs) documents (overall compliance with the quality tool: mean 5.74, IQR 3-8). CPGs and CSs specifically mentioning the term SDM (n = 12) had higher quality (mean 6.8, IQR 4-9 vs. mean 2.1, IQR 0-3; P = 0.001). No differences were found in mean quality comparing CPGs with CSs (3 vs. 1.6; P = 0.634), use of systematic review (4.2 vs. 2.9; P = 0.929) and publication in a journal (4 vs. 1.9; P = 0.094). Guidances with SDM were more recently reported than those without it (mean 41 vs. 57 months; P = 0.042).
Conclusion: More than half of all the guidelines did not meet SDM quality criteria. Those that explored it were more recently reported. There is an urgent need for promoting SDM in guidances concerning BC screening issued by institutions, professional associations and medical journals.
(© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.)
