10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Covering patient’s perspective in case‐based critical review articles to improve shared decision making in complex cases

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The patient has always been at the centre of the evidence‐based medicine model. Case‐based critical reviews, such as best‐evidence topics, however, are incomplete reflections of the evidence‐based medicine philosophy, because they fail to consider the patient's perspective. We propose a new framework, called the ‘Shared Decision Evidence Summary’ (ShaDES), where the patient's perspective on available treatment options is explicitly included.

          Methods

          Our framework is grounded in the critical appraisal of a clinical scenario, and the development of a clinical question, including patient characteristics, compared options and outcomes to be improved. Answers to the clinical question are informed by the literature, the evaluation of its quality and its potential usefulness to the clinical scenario. Finally, the evidence synthesis is presented to the patient to facilitate the formulation of an evidence‐informed decision about the treatment options.

          Key results

          Using three similar but contrasted clinical scenarios of patients with low back pain, we illustrate how considering the patient's preferences on the proposed treatment options impact the bottom line, a synthetic formulation of the answer to the focused question. ShaDES includes clinical and psychosocial components, transformed in a searchable question, with a full search strategy.

          Conclusions

          ShaDES is a practical framework that may facilitate clinical decisions adapted to psychological, social and other relevant non‐clinical characteristics of patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Non-specific low back pain.

          Non-specific low back pain affects people of all ages and is a leading contributor to disease burden worldwide. Management guidelines endorse triage to identify the rare cases of low back pain that are caused by medically serious pathology, and so require diagnostic work-up or specialist referral, or both. Because non-specific low back pain does not have a known pathoanatomical cause, treatment focuses on reducing pain and its consequences. Management consists of education and reassurance, analgesic medicines, non-pharmacological therapies, and timely review. The clinical course of low back pain is often favourable, thus many patients require little if any formal medical care. Two treatment strategies are currently used, a stepped approach beginning with more simple care that is progressed if the patient does not respond, and the use of simple risk prediction methods to individualise the amount and type of care provided. The overuse of imaging, opioids, and surgery remains a widespread problem.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

            Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Shared Decision Making: A Model for Clinical Practice

              The principles of shared decision making are well documented but there is a lack of guidance about how to accomplish the approach in routine clinical practice. Our aim here is to translate existing conceptual descriptions into a three-step model that is practical, easy to remember, and can act as a guide to skill development. Achieving shared decision making depends on building a good relationship in the clinical encounter so that information is shared and patients are supported to deliberate and express their preferences and views during the decision making process. To accomplish these tasks, we propose a model of how to do shared decision making that is based on choice, option and decision talk. The model has three steps: a) introducing choice, b) describing options, often by integrating the use of patient decision support, and c) helping patients explore preferences and make decisions. This model rests on supporting a process of deliberation, and on understanding that decisions should be influenced by exploring and respecting “what matters most” to patients as individuals, and that this exploration in turn depends on them developing informed preferences.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                louis-rachid.salmi@u-bordeaux.fr
                Journal
                Health Expect
                Health Expect
                10.1111/(ISSN)1369-7625
                HEX
                Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1369-6513
                1369-7625
                23 July 2020
                October 2020
                : 23
                : 5 ( doiID: 10.1111/hex.v23.5 )
                : 1037-1044
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Univ. Bordeaux, ISPED Centre INSERM U1219 Bordeaux Population Health Bordeaux France
                [ 2 ] INSERM ISPED Centre INSERM U1219 Bordeaux Population Health Bordeaux France
                [ 3 ] CHU de Bordeaux Pole de Sante Publique Service d’information Medicale Bordeaux France
                [ 4 ] Center for Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College Univ. of Ontario Institute of Technology Oshawa ON Canada
                [ 5 ] Ontario Technical University Oshawa ON Canada
                [ 6 ] Division of General Medical Rehabilitation Geneva Faculty of Medicine Geneva Switzerland
                [ 7 ] Division of Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology Multidisciplinary Pain Centre Univ. Hospitals Geneva University Geneva Switzerland
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Louis‐Rachid Salmi, ISPED, Centre INSERM U1219 Bordeaux Population Health, Univsity of Bordeaux, Bordeaux F‐33000, France.

                Email: louis-rachid.salmi@ 123456u-bordeaux.fr

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3307-049X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6986-6676
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3743-5644
                Article
                HEX13108
                10.1111/hex.13108
                7696115
                32700821
                4d4d4aea-bc51-4a8b-bc3d-da537209e49b
                © 2020 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 30 March 2020
                : 03 June 2020
                : 30 June 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Pages: 8, Words: 6319
                Categories
                Review Article
                Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                October 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.4 mode:remove_FC converted:28.11.2020

                Health & Social care
                evidence‐based medicine,evidence‐based practice,low back pain,patient’s perspective,practice guidelines

                Comments

                Comment on this article