Shared decision‐making related to treatment of haemophilia: A scoping review of influential factors and available support tools

Introduction Treatment selection in haemophilia is increasingly challenging given evolving therapeutic options and the need for individualization. Shared decision‐making (SDM) approaches have recently gained interest, though a synthesis of available studies is lacking. Aim A scoping review was condu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia Vol. 30; no. 4; pp. 880 - 893
Main Authors: Sun, Haowei (Linda), Klaassen, Robert J., Anger, Dana L., Mendell, Ari L., Olatunde, Shade
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.07.2024
Subjects:
Decision making
Decision Making, Shared
haemophilia
Hemophilia
Hemophilia A - therapy
Humans
Patient Participation
Patients
Shared decision making
techniques
treatment selection
haemophilia
models
treatment selection
shared decision‐making
tools
techniques
ISSN:1351-8216, 1365-2516, 1365-2516
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction Treatment selection in haemophilia is increasingly challenging given evolving therapeutic options and the need for individualization. Shared decision‐making (SDM) approaches have recently gained interest, though a synthesis of available studies is lacking. Aim A scoping review was conducted to summarize literature reporting on factors impacting treatment SDM in haemophilia and tools or models available to support such decisions. Methods PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and grey literature were searched for studies published through August 2023. Original studies reporting on facilitators and barriers to haemophilia SDM and SDM tools were included and analyzed for themes, characteristics and gaps. Results A total of 625 records were identified and 14 unique studies were selected (factors influencing treatment SDM, n = 7; SDM tools, n = 7). The studies typically included input from persons with haemophilia, caregivers and healthcare practitioners (HCPs). Thematic organization of factors influencing SDM revealed three main categories: knowledge, patient characteristics and HCP‐patient interactions. Availability of information was a commonly reported facilitator of SDM, while poor HCP‐patient engagement was a commonly reported barrier. Tools varied in focus, with some facilitating general treatment SDM while others supported selection of certain therapy types. The studies underscored additional factors critical for SDM, such as alignment of HCP‐patient perceptions, shared language and tailoring of tools to specific subpopulations. Conclusion Few studies report on treatment SDM factors and tools in haemophilia; available tools vary considerably. It remains unclear whether published tools have been successfully implemented into clinical practice. Additional research is warranted.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ISSN:1351-8216
1365-2516
1365-2516
DOI:10.1111/hae.15026