Decisional Conflict Scale Findings among Patients and Surrogates Making Health Decisions: Part II of an Anniversary Review
Background. We explored decisional conflict as measured with the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and how it varies across clinical situations, decision types, and exposure to decision support interventions (DESIs). Methods. An exhaustive scoping review was conducted using backward citation s...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medical Decision Making 2019-05, Vol.39 (4), p.316-327 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 327 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 316 |
container_title | Medical Decision Making |
container_volume | 39 |
creator | Garvelink, Mirjam M. Boland, Laura Klein, Krystal Nguyen, Don Vu Menear, Matthew Bekker, Hilary L. Eden, Karen B. LeBlanc, Annie O’Connor, Annette M. Stacey, Dawn Légaré, France |
description | Background. We explored decisional conflict as measured with the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and how it varies across clinical situations, decision types, and exposure to decision support interventions (DESIs). Methods. An exhaustive scoping review was conducted using backward citation searches and keyword searches. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data. Dyads independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative syntheses and calculated average or median DCS scores. Results. We included 246 articles reporting on 253 studies. DCS scores ranged from 2.4 to 79.7 out of 100. Highest baseline DCS scores were for care planning (44.8 ± 8.9, median = 47.0) and treatment decisions (32.5 ± 12.6, median = 31.9), in contexts of primary care (40.6 ± 18.3), and geriatrics (39.8 ± 11.2). Baseline scores were high among decision makers who were ill (33.2 ± 14.1, median = 30.2) or making decisions for themselves (33.4 ± 13.8, median = 32.0). Total DCS scores 37.4). After DESI use, DCS scores decreased short-term but increased or remained the same long-term (>6 months). Conclusions. DCS scores were highest at baseline and decreased after decision making. DESIs decreased decisional conflict immediately after decision making. The largest improvements after DESIs were in decision makers who were ill or made decisions for themselves. Further meta-analyses are needed for decision type, contexts, and interventions to inform hypotheses about the expected effects of DESIs, the best timing for measurement, and interpretation of DCS scores. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0272989X19851346 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2232475593</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0272989X19851346</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2232475593</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-7b34fc64f18a89ea8f2bcc3f415977950a731ced4cc7b019a8c9c394b8634ce53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1PGzEQhi1U1ATonVPlYy8L_ozt3lDKRyQQCFopt5XXmU2dbmxq74Lg1-MohEOlnkajed5XowehY0pOKFXqlDDFjDZzarSkXEz20JhKyaqJpvNPaLw5V5v7CB3kvCKECqPFZzTilArGiByj1x_gfPYx2A5PY2g773r84GwH-MKHhQ_LjO06hiW-s72H0Jc1LPDDkFJc2h4yvrF_CoWvwHb9b7yry99LIPV4NsOxLRF8FoJ_gpRtesH38OTh-Qjtt7bL8OV9HqJfF-c_p1fV9e3lbHp2XTmuTF-phovWTURLtdUGrG5Z4xxvBZVGKSOJVZw6WAjnVEOosdoZx41o9IQLB5Ifom_b3scU_w6Q-3rts4OuswHikGvGOBNKSsMLSraoSzHnBG39mPy6vFxTUm-M1_8aL5Gv7-1Ds4bFR2CnuADVFsh2CfUqDqm4zv8vfAM9dYmj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2232475593</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Decisional Conflict Scale Findings among Patients and Surrogates Making Health Decisions: Part II of an Anniversary Review</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Garvelink, Mirjam M. ; Boland, Laura ; Klein, Krystal ; Nguyen, Don Vu ; Menear, Matthew ; Bekker, Hilary L. ; Eden, Karen B. ; LeBlanc, Annie ; O’Connor, Annette M. ; Stacey, Dawn ; Légaré, France</creator><creatorcontrib>Garvelink, Mirjam M. ; Boland, Laura ; Klein, Krystal ; Nguyen, Don Vu ; Menear, Matthew ; Bekker, Hilary L. ; Eden, Karen B. ; LeBlanc, Annie ; O’Connor, Annette M. ; Stacey, Dawn ; Légaré, France</creatorcontrib><description>Background. We explored decisional conflict as measured with the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and how it varies across clinical situations, decision types, and exposure to decision support interventions (DESIs). Methods. An exhaustive scoping review was conducted using backward citation searches and keyword searches. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data. Dyads independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative syntheses and calculated average or median DCS scores. Results. We included 246 articles reporting on 253 studies. DCS scores ranged from 2.4 to 79.7 out of 100. Highest baseline DCS scores were for care planning (44.8 ± 8.9, median = 47.0) and treatment decisions (32.5 ± 12.6, median = 31.9), in contexts of primary care (40.6 ± 18.3), and geriatrics (39.8 ± 11.2). Baseline scores were high among decision makers who were ill (33.2 ± 14.1, median = 30.2) or making decisions for themselves (33.4 ± 13.8, median = 32.0). Total DCS scores <25 out of 100 were associated with implementing decisions. Without DESIs, DCS scores tended to increase shortly after decision making (>37.4). After DESI use, DCS scores decreased short-term but increased or remained the same long-term (>6 months). Conclusions. DCS scores were highest at baseline and decreased after decision making. DESIs decreased decisional conflict immediately after decision making. The largest improvements after DESIs were in decision makers who were ill or made decisions for themselves. Further meta-analyses are needed for decision type, contexts, and interventions to inform hypotheses about the expected effects of DESIs, the best timing for measurement, and interpretation of DCS scores.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0272-989X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-681X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19851346</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31142205</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Caregivers - psychology ; Conflict, Psychological ; Decision Making ; Humans ; Weights and Measures - instrumentation</subject><ispartof>Medical Decision Making, 2019-05, Vol.39 (4), p.316-327</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-7b34fc64f18a89ea8f2bcc3f415977950a731ced4cc7b019a8c9c394b8634ce53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-7b34fc64f18a89ea8f2bcc3f415977950a731ced4cc7b019a8c9c394b8634ce53</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5616-0597 ; 0000-0002-2681-741X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0272989X19851346$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19851346$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>313,314,776,780,788,21800,27901,27903,27904,43600,43601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31142205$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Garvelink, Mirjam M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boland, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klein, Krystal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Don Vu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Menear, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bekker, Hilary L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eden, Karen B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LeBlanc, Annie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Connor, Annette M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stacey, Dawn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Légaré, France</creatorcontrib><title>Decisional Conflict Scale Findings among Patients and Surrogates Making Health Decisions: Part II of an Anniversary Review</title><title>Medical Decision Making</title><addtitle>Med Decis Making</addtitle><description>Background. We explored decisional conflict as measured with the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and how it varies across clinical situations, decision types, and exposure to decision support interventions (DESIs). Methods. An exhaustive scoping review was conducted using backward citation searches and keyword searches. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data. Dyads independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative syntheses and calculated average or median DCS scores. Results. We included 246 articles reporting on 253 studies. DCS scores ranged from 2.4 to 79.7 out of 100. Highest baseline DCS scores were for care planning (44.8 ± 8.9, median = 47.0) and treatment decisions (32.5 ± 12.6, median = 31.9), in contexts of primary care (40.6 ± 18.3), and geriatrics (39.8 ± 11.2). Baseline scores were high among decision makers who were ill (33.2 ± 14.1, median = 30.2) or making decisions for themselves (33.4 ± 13.8, median = 32.0). Total DCS scores <25 out of 100 were associated with implementing decisions. Without DESIs, DCS scores tended to increase shortly after decision making (>37.4). After DESI use, DCS scores decreased short-term but increased or remained the same long-term (>6 months). Conclusions. DCS scores were highest at baseline and decreased after decision making. DESIs decreased decisional conflict immediately after decision making. The largest improvements after DESIs were in decision makers who were ill or made decisions for themselves. Further meta-analyses are needed for decision type, contexts, and interventions to inform hypotheses about the expected effects of DESIs, the best timing for measurement, and interpretation of DCS scores.</description><subject>Caregivers - psychology</subject><subject>Conflict, Psychological</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Weights and Measures - instrumentation</subject><issn>0272-989X</issn><issn>1552-681X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1PGzEQhi1U1ATonVPlYy8L_ozt3lDKRyQQCFopt5XXmU2dbmxq74Lg1-MohEOlnkajed5XowehY0pOKFXqlDDFjDZzarSkXEz20JhKyaqJpvNPaLw5V5v7CB3kvCKECqPFZzTilArGiByj1x_gfPYx2A5PY2g773r84GwH-MKHhQ_LjO06hiW-s72H0Jc1LPDDkFJc2h4yvrF_CoWvwHb9b7yry99LIPV4NsOxLRF8FoJ_gpRtesH38OTh-Qjtt7bL8OV9HqJfF-c_p1fV9e3lbHp2XTmuTF-phovWTURLtdUGrG5Z4xxvBZVGKSOJVZw6WAjnVEOosdoZx41o9IQLB5Ifom_b3scU_w6Q-3rts4OuswHikGvGOBNKSsMLSraoSzHnBG39mPy6vFxTUm-M1_8aL5Gv7-1Ds4bFR2CnuADVFsh2CfUqDqm4zv8vfAM9dYmj</recordid><startdate>201905</startdate><enddate>201905</enddate><creator>Garvelink, Mirjam M.</creator><creator>Boland, Laura</creator><creator>Klein, Krystal</creator><creator>Nguyen, Don Vu</creator><creator>Menear, Matthew</creator><creator>Bekker, Hilary L.</creator><creator>Eden, Karen B.</creator><creator>LeBlanc, Annie</creator><creator>O’Connor, Annette M.</creator><creator>Stacey, Dawn</creator><creator>Légaré, France</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5616-0597</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2681-741X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201905</creationdate><title>Decisional Conflict Scale Findings among Patients and Surrogates Making Health Decisions: Part II of an Anniversary Review</title><author>Garvelink, Mirjam M. ; Boland, Laura ; Klein, Krystal ; Nguyen, Don Vu ; Menear, Matthew ; Bekker, Hilary L. ; Eden, Karen B. ; LeBlanc, Annie ; O’Connor, Annette M. ; Stacey, Dawn ; Légaré, France</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-7b34fc64f18a89ea8f2bcc3f415977950a731ced4cc7b019a8c9c394b8634ce53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Caregivers - psychology</topic><topic>Conflict, Psychological</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Weights and Measures - instrumentation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Garvelink, Mirjam M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boland, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klein, Krystal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Don Vu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Menear, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bekker, Hilary L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eden, Karen B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LeBlanc, Annie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Connor, Annette M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stacey, Dawn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Légaré, France</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical Decision Making</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Garvelink, Mirjam M.</au><au>Boland, Laura</au><au>Klein, Krystal</au><au>Nguyen, Don Vu</au><au>Menear, Matthew</au><au>Bekker, Hilary L.</au><au>Eden, Karen B.</au><au>LeBlanc, Annie</au><au>O’Connor, Annette M.</au><au>Stacey, Dawn</au><au>Légaré, France</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Decisional Conflict Scale Findings among Patients and Surrogates Making Health Decisions: Part II of an Anniversary Review</atitle><jtitle>Medical Decision Making</jtitle><addtitle>Med Decis Making</addtitle><date>2019-05</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>316</spage><epage>327</epage><pages>316-327</pages><issn>0272-989X</issn><eissn>1552-681X</eissn><abstract>Background. We explored decisional conflict as measured with the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and how it varies across clinical situations, decision types, and exposure to decision support interventions (DESIs). Methods. An exhaustive scoping review was conducted using backward citation searches and keyword searches. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data. Dyads independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative syntheses and calculated average or median DCS scores. Results. We included 246 articles reporting on 253 studies. DCS scores ranged from 2.4 to 79.7 out of 100. Highest baseline DCS scores were for care planning (44.8 ± 8.9, median = 47.0) and treatment decisions (32.5 ± 12.6, median = 31.9), in contexts of primary care (40.6 ± 18.3), and geriatrics (39.8 ± 11.2). Baseline scores were high among decision makers who were ill (33.2 ± 14.1, median = 30.2) or making decisions for themselves (33.4 ± 13.8, median = 32.0). Total DCS scores <25 out of 100 were associated with implementing decisions. Without DESIs, DCS scores tended to increase shortly after decision making (>37.4). After DESI use, DCS scores decreased short-term but increased or remained the same long-term (>6 months). Conclusions. DCS scores were highest at baseline and decreased after decision making. DESIs decreased decisional conflict immediately after decision making. The largest improvements after DESIs were in decision makers who were ill or made decisions for themselves. Further meta-analyses are needed for decision type, contexts, and interventions to inform hypotheses about the expected effects of DESIs, the best timing for measurement, and interpretation of DCS scores.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>31142205</pmid><doi>10.1177/0272989X19851346</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5616-0597</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2681-741X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0272-989X |
ispartof | Medical Decision Making, 2019-05, Vol.39 (4), p.316-327 |
issn | 0272-989X 1552-681X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2232475593 |
source | SAGE Complete A-Z List; MEDLINE |
subjects | Caregivers - psychology Conflict, Psychological Decision Making Humans Weights and Measures - instrumentation |
title | Decisional Conflict Scale Findings among Patients and Surrogates Making Health Decisions: Part II of an Anniversary Review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T17%3A48%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Decisional%20Conflict%20Scale%20Findings%20among%20Patients%20and%20Surrogates%20Making%20Health%20Decisions:%20Part%20II%20of%20an%20Anniversary%20Review&rft.jtitle=Medical%20Decision%20Making&rft.au=Garvelink,%20Mirjam%20M.&rft.date=2019-05&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=316&rft.epage=327&rft.pages=316-327&rft.issn=0272-989X&rft.eissn=1552-681X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0272989X19851346&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2232475593%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2232475593&rft_id=info:pmid/31142205&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0272989X19851346&rfr_iscdi=true |