Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review
<h4>Background</h4> 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. <h4>Methods&l...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8926249/?tool=EBI |
| _version_ | 1818157626605699072 |
|---|---|
| author | Titilayo Tatiana Agbadjé Paula Riganti Évèhouénou Lionel Adisso Rhéda Adekpedjou Alexandrine Boucher Andressa Teoli Nunciaroni Juan Victor Ariel Franco Maria Victoria Ruiz Yanzi France Légaré |
| author_facet | Titilayo Tatiana Agbadjé Paula Riganti Évèhouénou Lionel Adisso Rhéda Adekpedjou Alexandrine Boucher Andressa Teoli Nunciaroni Juan Victor Ariel Franco Maria Victoria Ruiz Yanzi France Légaré |
| author_sort | Titilayo Tatiana Agbadjé |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Background</h4> 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. <h4>Methods</h4> 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. <h4>Results</h4> 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%. <h4>Conclusions</h4> 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T15:17:11Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e1333359115845a89a204d329852d9d4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T15:17:11Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-e1333359115845a89a204d329852d9d42022-12-22T01:00:32ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032022-01-01173Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic reviewTitilayo Tatiana AgbadjéPaula RigantiÉvèhouénou Lionel AdissoRhéda AdekpedjouAlexandrine BoucherAndressa Teoli NunciaroniJuan Victor Ariel FrancoMaria Victoria Ruiz YanziFrance Légaré<h4>Background</h4> 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. <h4>Methods</h4> 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. <h4>Results</h4> 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%. <h4>Conclusions</h4> 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.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8926249/?tool=EBI |
| spellingShingle | Titilayo Tatiana Agbadjé Paula Riganti Évèhouénou Lionel Adisso Rhéda Adekpedjou Alexandrine Boucher Andressa Teoli Nunciaroni Juan Victor Ariel Franco Maria Victoria Ruiz Yanzi France Légaré Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review PLoS ONE |
| title | Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review |
| title_full | Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review |
| title_fullStr | Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review |
| title_short | Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review |
| title_sort | are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated secondary analysis of a cochrane systematic review |
| url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8926249/?tool=EBI |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT titilayotatianaagbadje areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT paulariganti areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT evehouenoulioneladisso areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT rhedaadekpedjou areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT alexandrineboucher areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT andressateolinunciaroni areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT juanvictorarielfranco areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT mariavictoriaruizyanzi areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview AT francelegare areshareddecisionmakingstudieswellenoughdescribedtobereplicatedsecondaryanalysisofacochranesystematicreview |