IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i5p555-581.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework Part 1: A Systematic Review of the Decisional Needs of People Making Health or Social Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren Hoefel

    (School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

  • Annette M. O’Connor

    (School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

  • Krystina B. Lewis

    (School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

  • Laura Boland

    (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    School of Health Studies, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada)

  • Lindsey Sikora

    (Health Sciences Library, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

  • Jiale Hu

    (School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

  • Dawn Stacey

    (School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

Abstract

Background . The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has been used for 20 years to assess and address people’s decisional needs. The evidence regarding ODSF decisional needs has not been synthesized. Objectives . To synthesize evidence from ODSF-based decisional needs studies, identify new decisional needs, and validate current ODSF decisional needs. Methods . A mixed-studies systematic review. Nine electronic databases were searched. Inclusion criteria: studies of people’s decisional needs when making health or social decisions for themselves, a child, or a mentally incapable person, as reported by themselves, families, or practitioners. Two independent authors screened eligibility, extracted data, and quality appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analyzed using narrative synthesis. Results . Of 4532 citations, 45 studies from 7 countries were eligible. People’s needs for 101 unique decisions (85 health, 16 social) were reported by 2857 patient decision makers ( n = 36 studies), 92 parent decision makers ( n = 6), 81 family members ( n = 5), and 523 practitioners ( n = 21). Current ODSF decisional needs were reported in 2 to 40 studies. For 6 decisional needs, there were 11 new (manifestations): 1) information (overload, inadequacy regarding others’ experiences with options), 2) difficult decisional roles (practitioner, family involvement, or deliberations), 3) unrealistic expectations (difficulty believing outcome probabilities apply to them), 4) personal needs (religion/spirituality), 5) difficult decision timing (unpredictable), and 6) unreceptive decisional stage (difficulty accepting condition/need for treatment, powerful emotions limiting information processing, lacking motivation to consider delayed/unpredictable decisions). Limitations . Possible publication bias (only peer-reviewed journals included). Possible missed needs (non-ODSF studies, patient decision aid development studies, 3 ODSF needs added in 2006). Conclusion . We validated current decisional needs, identified 11 new manifestations of 6 decisional needs, and recommended ODSF revisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Lauren Hoefel & Annette M. O’Connor & Krystina B. Lewis & Laura Boland & Lindsey Sikora & Jiale Hu & Dawn Stacey, 2020. "20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework Part 1: A Systematic Review of the Decisional Needs of People Making Health or Social Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(5), pages 555-581, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:5:p:555-581
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20936209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20936209
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20936209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard W. Martin & Stina Brogård Andersen & Mary Ann O’Brien & Paulina Bravo & Tammy Hoffmann & Karina Olling & Heather L. Shepherd & Kathrina Dankl & Dawn Stacey & Karina Dahl Steffensen, 2021. "Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 780-800, October.
    2. Helle Sorensen von Essen & Frantz Rom Poulsen & Rikke Hedegaard Dahlrot & Karin Piil & Karina Dahl Steffensen, 2022. "Development of a Patient Decision Aid to Support Shared Decision Making for Patients with Recurrent High-Grade Glioma," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Michaels, Jonathan A & Maheswaran, Ravi, 2023. "Conflicting perspectives during guidelines development are an important source of implementation failure," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:5:p:555-581. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.