Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Shared decision-making interventions: An overview and a meta-analysis of their impact on vaccine uptake.
Scalia, P; Durand, M-A; Elwyn, G.
Afiliación
  • Scalia P; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
  • Durand MA; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
  • Elwyn G; Unité mixte de recherché, Centre d'Épidémiologie et de Recherche en santé des Populations, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
J Intern Med ; 291(4): 408-425, 2022 04.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34700363
BACKGROUND: The interest in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of patient decision aids have increased significantly. Research indicates that this approach has benefits, and yet, implementation remains a challenge. To illustrate this development, we focus on vaccine hesitancy which has become a serious public health challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Various strategies have been used in healthcare, with limited success, to help patients overcome vaccine hesitancy. It is unclear whether SDM interventions can increase vaccination rates. AIMS: Our aim was two-fold: to provide an overview of SDM and the use of patient decision aids and to determine the effect of SDM interventions on vaccine uptake. METHODS: To provide an overview, we drew on our knowledge of the field and summarized the most recent systematic reviews. We examined the impact on vaccine hesitancy by searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions, conducted a meta-analysis and calculated a pooled odds ratio. Additional outcomes were reported in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: SDM is viewed as the pinnacle of patient-centred care, supported by an ethical imperative and by empirical evidence of benefits. We found 10 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. SDM interventions significantly increased vaccine uptake compared to control groups (odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [1.17-1.80]; p < 0.01). Some RCTs also reported significantly decreased decisional conflict and increased decision confidence. CONCLUSION: Future healthcare delivery systems will need to consider how to support the implementation of SDM. Interventions designed to facilitate this approach can represent a helpful, ethically defensible, strategy to increase vaccination rates.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Vacunas / COVID-19 Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Overview / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Aspecto: Ethics / Patient_preference Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Intern Med Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA INTERNA Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Reino Unido
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Vacunas / COVID-19 Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Overview / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Aspecto: Ethics / Patient_preference Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Intern Med Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA INTERNA Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Reino Unido