» Articles » PMID: 35294494

Are Shared Decision Making Studies Well Enough Described to Be Replicated? Secondary Analysis of a Cochrane Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: Interventions to change health professionals' behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

Methods: We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under "what materials?" we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses.

Results: Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: "brief name" (87/87, 100%), "why" (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and "what" (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were "materials" (29/87, 33%), "who" (23/87, 26%), and "when and how much" (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: "tailoring" (8/87, 9%), "modifications" (3/87, 4%), and "how well (actual)" (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported "How", (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%.

Conclusions: Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.

Citing Articles

Development and preliminary evaluation of a decision coach training module for nurses in Norway.

Kienlin S, Nytroen K, Kasper J, Stacey D BMC Nurs. 2025; 24(1):152.

PMID: 39930431 PMC: 11808981. DOI: 10.1186/s12912-024-02569-6.


Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review.

Rosengaard L, Andersen M, Rosenberg J, Fonnes S PeerJ. 2024; 12:e18466.

PMID: 39575170 PMC: 11580664. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18466.


Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening.

Riganti P, Ruiz Yanzi M, Escobar Liquitay C, Sgarbossa N, Alarcon-Ruiz C, Kopitowski K Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024; 5:CD013822.

PMID: 38726892 PMC: 11082933. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013822.pub2.


"The Terminology Might Be Ahead of Practice": Embedding Shared Decision Making in Practice-Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of SDM in the Context of Maternity Care.

Waddell A, Goodwin D, Spassova G, Bragge P MDM Policy Pract. 2023; 8(2):23814683231199943.

PMID: 37743932 PMC: 10517621. DOI: 10.1177/23814683231199943.


Co-designing a theory-informed intervention to increase shared decision-making in maternity care.

Waddell A, Spassova G, Sampson L, Jungbluth L, Dam J, Bragge P Health Res Policy Syst. 2023; 21(1):15.

PMID: 36721156 PMC: 9888748. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-023-00959-x.

References
1.
Shepherd H, Barratt A, Trevena L, McGeechan K, Carey K, Epstein R . Three questions that patients can ask to improve the quality of information physicians give about treatment options: a cross-over trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2011; 84(3):379-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.07.022. View

2.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T . Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997; 44(5):681-92. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3. View

3.
Eysenbach G . CONSORT-EHEALTH: improving and standardizing evaluation reports of Web-based and mobile health interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2012; 13(4):e126. PMC: 3278112. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1923. View

4.
Hess E, Hollander J, Schaffer J, Kline J, Torres C, Diercks D . Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial. BMJ. 2016; 355:i6165. PMC: 5152707. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i6165. View

5.
Myers R, Daskalakis C, Kunkel E, Cocroft J, Riggio J, Capkin M . Mediated decision support in prostate cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial of decision counseling. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 83(2):240-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.011. View