“…First, people living asthma have diverse views regarding participation in SDM, which are classified as being positive, neutral, or negative 15,16,18,21,22,24,26,29,30,37,39,40 . The majority of them, who have a positive attitude, respect asthma care and actively seek professional advice (most of whom are women); as a result, they are eager for medical institutions to impart expert information about asthma.Never give up … If you think there's something wrong, that someone's not saying, speak up.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…the studies were conducted in America (n = 11), 18,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]37,38 England (n = 3), 15,22,39 Australia (n = 1), 16 France (n = 1), 21 New Zealand (n = 1), 23 Canada (n = 1), 17 and Saudi Arabia(n = 1). 14 Quality assessment revealed that most of these studies met most Joanna Briggs Institute criteria (Table 1).…”
ObjectivesTo identify, describe and synthesise the views and experiences of adults living with asthma regarding shared decision‐making (SDM) in the existing qualitative literatureMethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of 10 databases (list databases) from inception until September 2023. Screening was performed according to inclusion criteria. Tools from the Joanna Briggs lnstitute were utilised for the purposes of data extraction and synthesis in this study. The data extraction process in this study employed the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM‐B model) as a framework, and a pragmatic meta‐aggregative approach was employed to synthesise the collected results.ResultsNineteen studies were included in the metasynthesis. Three synthesised themes were identified: the capability of people living with asthma, the opportunities of people living with asthma in SDM, and the motivation of the people living with asthma in SDM.ConclusionsWe have identified specific factors influencing people living with asthma engaging in SDM. The findings of this study can serve as a basis for the implementation of SDM in people living with asthma and provide insights for the development of their SDM training programs. The ConQual score for the synthesised findings was rated as low. To enhance confidence, future studies should address dependability and credibility factors.Practice ImplicationsThis review contemplates the implementation of SDM from the perspective of people living with asthma, with the aim of providing patient‐centred services for them. The results of this review can benefit the implementation of SDM and facilitate information sharing. It offers guidance for SDM skills training among adults living with asthma, fosters a better doctor–patient relationship and facilitates consensus in treatment decisions, thereby enabling personalised and tailored medical care.Patient or Public ContributionThree nursing graduate students participated in the data extraction and integration process, with two students having extensive clinical experience that provided valuable insights for the integration.
“…First, people living asthma have diverse views regarding participation in SDM, which are classified as being positive, neutral, or negative 15,16,18,21,22,24,26,29,30,37,39,40 . The majority of them, who have a positive attitude, respect asthma care and actively seek professional advice (most of whom are women); as a result, they are eager for medical institutions to impart expert information about asthma.Never give up … If you think there's something wrong, that someone's not saying, speak up.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…the studies were conducted in America (n = 11), 18,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]37,38 England (n = 3), 15,22,39 Australia (n = 1), 16 France (n = 1), 21 New Zealand (n = 1), 23 Canada (n = 1), 17 and Saudi Arabia(n = 1). 14 Quality assessment revealed that most of these studies met most Joanna Briggs Institute criteria (Table 1).…”
ObjectivesTo identify, describe and synthesise the views and experiences of adults living with asthma regarding shared decision‐making (SDM) in the existing qualitative literatureMethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of 10 databases (list databases) from inception until September 2023. Screening was performed according to inclusion criteria. Tools from the Joanna Briggs lnstitute were utilised for the purposes of data extraction and synthesis in this study. The data extraction process in this study employed the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM‐B model) as a framework, and a pragmatic meta‐aggregative approach was employed to synthesise the collected results.ResultsNineteen studies were included in the metasynthesis. Three synthesised themes were identified: the capability of people living with asthma, the opportunities of people living with asthma in SDM, and the motivation of the people living with asthma in SDM.ConclusionsWe have identified specific factors influencing people living with asthma engaging in SDM. The findings of this study can serve as a basis for the implementation of SDM in people living with asthma and provide insights for the development of their SDM training programs. The ConQual score for the synthesised findings was rated as low. To enhance confidence, future studies should address dependability and credibility factors.Practice ImplicationsThis review contemplates the implementation of SDM from the perspective of people living with asthma, with the aim of providing patient‐centred services for them. The results of this review can benefit the implementation of SDM and facilitate information sharing. It offers guidance for SDM skills training among adults living with asthma, fosters a better doctor–patient relationship and facilitates consensus in treatment decisions, thereby enabling personalised and tailored medical care.Patient or Public ContributionThree nursing graduate students participated in the data extraction and integration process, with two students having extensive clinical experience that provided valuable insights for the integration.
“…SDM studies conducted in Western countries have generated a wealth of valuable resources, including not only theoretical models ( 16 ) but also practical tools ( 17 ). Some models ( 1 , 18 ) and tools ( 19–21 ) have been empirically tested and possess strong guidance and applicability. However, the significant differences in healthcare systems and cultures between Western countries and China raise questions about the feasibility of simply transferring Western SDM products into China ( 22 ).…”
BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) facilitates the participation of healthcare professionals and patients in treatment decisions. We conducted a scoping review to assess SDM’s current status in mainland China, referencing the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF).MethodsOur review encompassed extensive searches across six English and four Chinese databases, and various gray literature until April 30, 2021. Results were synthesized using thematic analysis.ResultsOut of the 60 included studies, we identified three key themes based on the ODSF framework: decisional needs, decision support, and decisional outcomes. However, there appears to be a lack of comprehensive understanding of concepts related to decisional needs in China. Only a few studies have delved into feasibility, preference, choice, and outcome factors in the SDM process. Another challenge emerges from an absence of uniform standards for developing patient decision aids (PDAs). Furthermore, regarding health outcome indicators, their predominant focus remains on physiological needs.ConclusionSDM is in its infancy in mainland China. It is important to explore the concept and expression of decisional needs in the context of Chinese culture. Subsequent studies should focus on constructing a scientifically rigorous and systematic approach for the development of PDAs, and considering the adaptation of SDM steps to the clinical context in China during SDM implementation. Concurrently, The focus on health outcomes in Chinese SDM studies, driven by the unique healthcare resource landscape, underscores the necessity of prioritizing basic needs within limited resources.Systematic review registrationhttps://inplasy.com/?s=202130021.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
