Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36209086›Full record

ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2022

Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review.

Junqiang Zhao, Janet Jull, Jeanette Finderup, Maureen Smith, Simone Maria Kienlin, Anne Christin Rahn, Sandra Dunn, Yumi Aoki, Leanne Brown, Gillian Harvey and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2024
    Article
  12. Decision support for breast cancer screening decisions: A single case pre-/post-test study.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Development and Piloting of a Web-Based Tool to Teach Relative and Absolute Risk Reductions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 11 institutions in 6 countries.

Junqiang ZhaoSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Janet JullSchool of Rehabilitation Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Jeanette FinderupDepartment of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Maureen SmithCochrane Consumer Network Executive, Ottawa, Canada.
Simone Maria KienlinDepartment of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Langnes, Norway.
Anne Christin RahnNursing Research Unit, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Sandra DunnSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Yumi AokiPsychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke's International University, Tokyo, Japan.
Leanne BrownSchool of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisban, Australia.
Gillian HarveyCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Dawn StaceySchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. Dawn.Stacey@uOttawa.ca.
Aarhus University Hospital · DKCochrane · CAFlinders University · AUOttawa Hospital · CAOttawa Hospital Research InstituteQueensland University of Technology · AUQueen's University · CASt. Luke's International University · JPUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOUniversity of Lübeck · DEUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a trained healthcare provider to help people prepare to actively participate in making healthcare decisions. This study aimed to understand how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions.

methodsWe followed the realist review methodology for this study. This study was built on a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness of decision coaching interventions for people facing healthcare decisions. It involved six iterative steps: (1) develop the initial program theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) select, appraise, and prioritize studies; (4) extract and organize data; (5) synthesize evidence; and (6) consult stakeholders and draw conclusions.

resultsWe developed an initial program theory based on decision coaching theories and stakeholder feedback. Of the 2594 citations screened, we prioritized 27 papers for synthesis based on their relevance rating. To refine the program theory, we identified 12 context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Essential mechanisms for decision coaching to be initiated include decision coaches', patients', and clinicians' commitments to patients' involvement in decision making and decision coaches' knowledge and skills (four CMOs). CMOs during decision coaching are related to the patient (i.e., willing to confide, perceiving their decisional needs are recognized, acquiring knowledge, feeling supported), and the patient-decision coach interaction (i.e., exchanging information, sharing a common understanding of patient's values) (five CMOs). After decision coaching, the patient's progress in making or implementing a values-based preferred decision can be facilitated by the decision coach's advocacy for the patient, and the patient's deliberation upon options (two CMOs). Leadership support enables decision coaches to have access to essential resources to fulfill their role (one CMOs). DISCUSSION: In the refined program theory, decision coaching works when there is strong leadership support and commitment from decision coaches, clinicians, and patients. Decision coaches need to be capable in coaching, encourage patients' participation, build a trusting relationship with patients, and act as a liaison between patients and clinicians to facilitate patients' progress in making or implementing an informed values-based preferred option. More empirical studies, especially qualitative and process evaluation studies, are needed to further refine the program theory.

Indexed as

MentoringDecision MakingHealth PersonnelHumansPatient ParticipationSystematic Reviews as TopicDecision coachingProgram theoryRealist reviewShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID36209086
PMCPMC9548102
OpenAlexW4303650551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.