Mixed-methods systematic review of shared decision-making tools for cancer screening

Abstract Shared decision-making (SDM) tools hold promise for guiding informed choices in cancer screening. However, their effectiveness among underserved people, as well as the specific characteristics of these tools preferred by this group and clinicians, remains unclear. This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of SDM tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of underserved people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analyses showed that SDM tools for cancer screening are effective in reducing decisional conflict for both the general population and the underserved, and in increasing cancer screening knowledge and intention for underserved people only. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes, measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed that underserved people highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information about cancer risk, culturally tailored content, and high accessibility, both during clinical encounters and beyond. Meanwhile, clinicians highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into medical systems, and can effectively guide SDM, while considering their patients’ values and the limited time for consultation. There is strong evidence on the effectiveness of SDM tools in facilitating informed choice in cancer screening, especially among underserved people. However, evidence on long-term outcomes remains insufficient. Additionally, considering the difference in preferences of key stakeholders in terms of tool characteristics, fostering collaboration with them during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. Key messages • Shared decision-making tools are effective in increasing screening knowledge and intention among underserved people. • Considering the difference in preferences of key stakeholders in terms of tool characteristics, fostering collaboration with them during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Public Health
Published
2024-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckae144.1074
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Mixed-methods systematic review of shared decision-making tools for cancer screening

Neamin M. Berhe, Guido F. Van Hal, Sarah Talboom, Allegra Ferrari et al.
European Journal of Public Health
Ethics in Clinical Research
article

Mixed-methods systematic review of shared decision-making tools for cancer screening

Neamin M. Berhe, Guido F. Van Hal, Sarah Talboom, Allegra Ferrari, Wessel van de Veerdonk, Deborah Jael Herrera, Marlon van Loo, A Ruiz-Alejos
article en

Abstract

Abstract Shared decision-making (SDM) tools hold promise for guiding informed choices in cancer screening. However, their effectiveness among underserved people, as well as the specific characteristics of these tools preferred by this group and clinicians, remains unclear. This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of SDM tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of underserved people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analyses showed that SDM tools for cancer screening are effective in reducing decisional conflict for both the general population and the underserved, and in increasing cancer screening knowledge and intention for underserved people only. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes, measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed that underserved people highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information about cancer risk, culturally tailored content, and high accessibility, both during clinical encounters and beyond. Meanwhile, clinicians highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into medical systems, and can effectively guide SDM, while considering their patients’ values and the limited time for consultation. There is strong evidence on the effectiveness of SDM tools in facilitating informed choice in cancer screening, especially among underserved people. However, evidence on long-term outcomes remains insufficient. Additionally, considering the difference in preferences of key stakeholders in terms of tool characteristics, fostering collaboration with them during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. Key messages • Shared decision-making tools are effective in increasing screening knowledge and intention among underserved people. • Considering the difference in preferences of key stakeholders in terms of tool characteristics, fostering collaboration with them during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential.

European Journal of Public HealthVol. 34(Supplement_3)
University of Antwerp (BE), Thomas More University (US), SGS (Czechia) (CZ), Thomas More Kempen (BE), University of Genoa (IT)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Ethics in Clinical Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.