14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      To submit to Bentham Journals, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Shared Decision-Making for Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review

      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:

          Shared decision-making has received national and international interest by providers, educators, researchers, and policy makers. The literature on shared decision-making is extensive, dealing with the individual components of shared decision-making rather than a comprehensive process. This view of shared decision-making leaves healthcare providers to wonder how to integrate shared decision-making into practice.

          Objective:

          To understand shared decision-making as a comprehensive process from the perspective of the patient and provider in all healthcare settings.

          Methods:

          An integrative review was conducted applying a systematic approach involving a literature search, data evaluation, and data analysis. The search included articles from PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO from 1970 through 2016. Articles included quantitative experimental and non-experimental designs, qualitative, and theoretical articles about shared decision-making between all healthcare providers and patients in all healthcare settings.

          Results:

          Fifty-two papers were included in this integrative review. Three categories emerged from the synthesis: (a) communication/ relationship building; (b) working towards a shared decision; and (c) action for shared decision-making. Each major theme contained sub-themes represented in the proposed visual representation for shared decision-making.

          Conclusion:

          A comprehensive understanding of shared decision-making between the nurse and the patient was identified. A visual representation offers a guide that depicts shared decision-making as a process taking place during a healthcare encounter with implications for the continuation of shared decisions over time offering patients an opportunity to return to the nurse for reconsiderations of past shared decisions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          To Err Is Human : Building a Safer Health System

          (2000)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes.

            Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the empirical evidence linking patient outcomes and SDM, when the decision-making process has been explicitly measured, and to identify under what measurement perspectives SDM is associated with which types of patient outcomes (affective-cognitive, behavioral, and health). PubMed (through December 2012) and hand search of article bibliographies. Studies were included if they empirically 1) measured SDM in the context of a patient-clinician interaction and 2) evaluated the relationship between SDM and at least 1 patient outcome. Study results were categorized by SDM measurement perspective (patient-reported, clinician-reported, or observer-rated) and outcome type (affective-cognitive, behavioral, or health). Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-three used patient-reported measures of SDM, 6 used observer-rated measures, and 2 used clinician-reported measures. Ninety-seven unique patient outcomes were assessed; 51% affective-cognitive, 28% behavioral, and 21% health. Only 43% of assessments (n = 42) found a significant and positive relationship between SDM and the patient outcome. This proportion varied by SDM measurement perspective and outcome category. It was found that 52% of outcomes assessed with patient-reported SDM were significant and positive, compared with 21% with observer-rated and 0% with clinician-reported SDM. Regardless of measurement perspective, SDM was most likely to be associated with affective-cognitive patient outcomes (54%), compared with 37% of behavioral and 25% of health outcomes. The relatively small number of studies precludes meta-analysis. Because the study inclusion and exclusion criteria required both an empirical measure of SDM and an assessment of the association between that measure and a patient outcome, most included studies were observational in design. SDM, when perceived by patients as occurring, tends to result in improved affective-cognitive outcomes. Evidence is lacking for the association between empirical measures of SDM and patient behavioral and health outcomes. © The Author(s) 2014.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research.

              P Burnard (1991)
              A method of analysing qualitative interview data is outlined as a stage-by-stage process. Some of the problems associated with the method are identified. The researcher in the field of qualitative work is urged to be systematic and open to the difficulties of the task of understanding other people's perceptions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Open Nurs J
                Open Nurs J
                TONURSJ
                The Open Nursing Journal
                Bentham Open
                1874-4346
                22 January 2018
                2018
                : 12
                : 1-14
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Pace University, College of Health Professions, Lienhard School of Nursing 861 Bedford Road Pleasantville, NY 10570, USA
                [2 ]Clinical Assistant Professor, Pace University, College of Health Professions, Lienhard School of Nursing 163 William Street, 5 th Floor New York, NY 10036, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Address correspondence to the author at the Pace University, College of Health Professions, Lienhard School of Nursing 861 Bedford Road Pleasantville, NY 10570, USA, Tel: (914) 773-3199; Fax: (914) 773-3357; E-mail: mlondrigan@ 123456pace.edu
                Article
                TONURSJ-12-1
                10.2174/1874434601812010001
                5806202
                29456779
                235a98fe-e91c-4153-b6d1-5c69c4f1c1b3
                © 2018 Truglio-Londrigan and Slyer.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 13 October 2017
                : 16 December 2017
                : 25 December 2017
                Categories
                Nursing

                Nursing
                shared decision-making,nurse-patient relationship,reflection,communication,integrative review,practice model

                Comments

                Comment on this article