TY - JOUR
T1 - Shared Decision-making in Dermatology
T2 - A Scoping Review
AU - Morrison, Tessalyn
AU - Johnson, Jacob
AU - Baghoomian, Wenelia
AU - Hamilton, Andrew
AU - Simpson, Eric
AU - Greiling, Teri
AU - Foster, Erin
N1 - Funding Information:
reported receiving personal fees and grants from AbbVie, personal fees and grants from Eli Lilly, personal fees and grants from Incyte, personal fees and grants from Kyowa Hakko Kirin, personal fees and grants from Leo Pharmaceuticals, personal fees and grants from Merck, grants from Novartis, personal fees and grants from Pfizer, personal fees and grants from Regeneron, personal fees and grants from Sanofi, personal fees and grants from Tioga, grants from Vanda, and personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Collective Acument LLC, Forte Bio, Janssen, Ortho Dermatologics, Pierre Fabre Dermo Cosmetique, Roivant, and Valeant outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - Importance: Shared decision-making (SDM) can improve the quality of care for patients. The extent to which this tool has been used and the evidence supporting its use in dermatology have not been systematically examined. Objective: To perform a scoping review of the literature regarding SDM in dermatology. Evidence Review: Searches of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Sciverse Scopus, and EBM Reviews were conduced on July 11, 2019, and March 6, 2020. There were no limits on date, type of article, language, or subject for the initial search. A total of 1673 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers in the Covidence mixed-methods platform. Forty-one full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. For inclusion, articles needed to include a dermatologic diagnosis as well as discussion of SDM or patient decision aids. Two independent reviewers screened 29 full-text articles for inclusion and extracted qualitative data using a set of 26 predefined codes. Qualitative coding was applied to excerpts to categorize the article, define and describe advantages and disadvantages of SDM, understand patient and physician requests for SDM, and discuss methods of implementation. Findings: Despite a small number of articles on SDM (n = 29) in dermatology, the selected literature provided consistent messages regarding the importance of SDM for dermatology and a number of strategies and tools for implementation. Medical dermatology was the most common subspecialty studied, with melanoma, psoriasis, and connective tissue diseases most examined. Only 5 publications introduced SDM tools specifically for dermatologic conditions; of these, only 2 tools were validated. Barriers to implementation that were cited included time and a lack of training for clinicians, although the literature also provided potential solutions to these issues. All articles emphasized the value of SDM for both patients and physicians. Conclusions and Relevance: The literature regarding SDM in dermatology consistently suggests that it is a useful tool for providing patient-centered care. Established tools have been proposed since 2012. More research is needed to implement better practices, especially in dermatologic subspecialties. However, there are substantial suggestions from the literature for strategies and tools with which to begin a shared decision-making practice..
AB - Importance: Shared decision-making (SDM) can improve the quality of care for patients. The extent to which this tool has been used and the evidence supporting its use in dermatology have not been systematically examined. Objective: To perform a scoping review of the literature regarding SDM in dermatology. Evidence Review: Searches of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Sciverse Scopus, and EBM Reviews were conduced on July 11, 2019, and March 6, 2020. There were no limits on date, type of article, language, or subject for the initial search. A total of 1673 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers in the Covidence mixed-methods platform. Forty-one full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. For inclusion, articles needed to include a dermatologic diagnosis as well as discussion of SDM or patient decision aids. Two independent reviewers screened 29 full-text articles for inclusion and extracted qualitative data using a set of 26 predefined codes. Qualitative coding was applied to excerpts to categorize the article, define and describe advantages and disadvantages of SDM, understand patient and physician requests for SDM, and discuss methods of implementation. Findings: Despite a small number of articles on SDM (n = 29) in dermatology, the selected literature provided consistent messages regarding the importance of SDM for dermatology and a number of strategies and tools for implementation. Medical dermatology was the most common subspecialty studied, with melanoma, psoriasis, and connective tissue diseases most examined. Only 5 publications introduced SDM tools specifically for dermatologic conditions; of these, only 2 tools were validated. Barriers to implementation that were cited included time and a lack of training for clinicians, although the literature also provided potential solutions to these issues. All articles emphasized the value of SDM for both patients and physicians. Conclusions and Relevance: The literature regarding SDM in dermatology consistently suggests that it is a useful tool for providing patient-centered care. Established tools have been proposed since 2012. More research is needed to implement better practices, especially in dermatologic subspecialties. However, there are substantial suggestions from the literature for strategies and tools with which to begin a shared decision-making practice..
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100604699&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85100604699&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.5362
DO - 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.5362
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33533921
AN - SCOPUS:85100604699
SN - 2168-6068
VL - 157
SP - 330
EP - 337
JO - A. M. A. archives of dermatology and syphilology
JF - A. M. A. archives of dermatology and syphilology
IS - 3
ER -