The Journal of surgical research · 2026
Quantitative Assessments of Shared Decision-Making for Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: A Scoping Review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wong Bonnie O, Vierra Mason A, Fladger Anne, Clancy Thomas E, Raut Chandrajit P, Cooper Zara R
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a tenet in patient centered care, but assessment of SDM for pancreatic cancer surgery has been limited. The aim of this study is to identify studies which utilized quantitative assessments of SDM for pancreatic cancer surgery.
METHODS: We searched four databases from inception until March 2025. Abstracts and titles were screened, and full texts were analyzed by two readers (B.O.W., M.A.V.). Data on author, year, cancer population, location, and assessment method were collected. Only studies that included at least one quantitative assessment were included. Items from each assessment were extracted and coded with top-level and subcodes to identify themes.
RESULTS: Title and abstract screening of 134 studies yielded 6 studies which met inclusion criteria. Review of these studies revealed 7 validated quantitative assessments of SDM, of which 3 were patient reported and 4 require external observation. shared decision making questionnaire-9 was most frequently used (5/6) and the only instrument used by more than one study. We identified four themes and ten subthemes across all 7 instruments. Of the subthemes, "Eliciting treatment preferences" was measured by every quantitative assessment, "advantages and disadvantages of options" was measured by 6 of 7 assessments, and "presenting options" was measured by 5 of 7 assessments.
CONCLUSIONS: The assessments used for measuring SDM in pancreatic cancer surgery in prior research studies are not specifically designed for cancer surgery SDM. Findings from this scoping review highlight discrepancy between current assessments of SDM and needs of SDM for pancreatic cancer surgery.
METHODS: We searched four databases from inception until March 2025. Abstracts and titles were screened, and full texts were analyzed by two readers (B.O.W., M.A.V.). Data on author, year, cancer population, location, and assessment method were collected. Only studies that included at least one quantitative assessment were included. Items from each assessment were extracted and coded with top-level and subcodes to identify themes.
RESULTS: Title and abstract screening of 134 studies yielded 6 studies which met inclusion criteria. Review of these studies revealed 7 validated quantitative assessments of SDM, of which 3 were patient reported and 4 require external observation. shared decision making questionnaire-9 was most frequently used (5/6) and the only instrument used by more than one study. We identified four themes and ten subthemes across all 7 instruments. Of the subthemes, "Eliciting treatment preferences" was measured by every quantitative assessment, "advantages and disadvantages of options" was measured by 6 of 7 assessments, and "presenting options" was measured by 5 of 7 assessments.
CONCLUSIONS: The assessments used for measuring SDM in pancreatic cancer surgery in prior research studies are not specifically designed for cancer surgery SDM. Findings from this scoping review highlight discrepancy between current assessments of SDM and needs of SDM for pancreatic cancer surgery.