Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review

Marta Maes‐Carballo; Isabel Muñoz‐Núñez; Manuel Martín‐Díaz; Luciano Mignini; Aurora Bueno‐Cavanillas; Khalid Saeed Khan

doi:10.1111/hex.13112

journal article Open Access Aug 03, 2020

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review

Marta Maes‐Carballo

Isabel Muñoz‐Núñez Manuel Martín‐Díaz Luciano Mignini Aurora Bueno‐Cavanillas

Khalid Saeed Khan

Health Expectations Vol. 23 No. 5 pp. 1045-1064 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/hex.13112

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundIt is not clear whether clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are adequately promoting shared decision making (SDM).ObjectiveTo evaluate the recommendations about SDM in CPGs and CSs concerning breast cancer (BC) treatment.Search strategyFollowing protocol registration (Prospero no.: CRD42018106643), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2010 to December 2019.Inclusion criteriaCPGs and CSs on BC treatment were selected whether published in a journal or in an online document.Data extraction and synthesisA 31‐item SDM quality assessment tool was developed and used to extract data in duplicate.Main resultsThere were 167 relevant CPGs (139) and CSs (28); SDM was reported in only 40% of the studies. SDM was reported more often in recent publications after 2015 (42/101 (41.6 %) vs 46/66 (69.7 %), P = .0003) but less often in medical journal publications (44/101 (43.5 %) vs 17/66 (25.7 %), P = .009). In CPGs and CSs with SDM, only 8/66 (12%) met one‐fifth (6 of 31) of the quality items; only 14/66 (8%) provided clear and precise SDM recommendations.Discussion and conclusionsSDM descriptions and recommendations in CPGs and CSs concerning BC treatment need improvement. SDM was more frequently reported in CPGs and CSs in recent years, but surprisingly it was less often covered in medical journals, a feature that needs attention.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

203

[1]

Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

Freddie Bray, Jacques Ferlay, Isabelle Soerjomataram et al.

CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 10.3322/caac.21492

[2]

World Health Organization (2019)

[3]

Acebal Blanco M (2011)

[4]

10.3390/ijms18112423

[5]

Breast Cancer Treatment

Adrienne G. Waks, Eric P. Winer

JAMA 10.1001/jama.2018.19323

[6]

10.2147/jmdh.s117945

[7]

10.1200/jco.2007.10.9272

[8]

Unidades asistenciales del área del cáncer (2013)

[9]

10.17226/18359

[10]

10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6

[11]

Estado BOd "Ley 41/2002 básica reguladora de la autonomía del paciente y de derechos y obligaciones en materia de información y documentación clínica" BOE (2002)

[12]

Senate and House of Representatives (2010)

[13]

Department of Health (2010)

[14]

10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.11.017

[15]

International Shared Decision Making Society.2018.

[16]

AECC.Estudio de investigación “Necesidades no clínicas de los pacientes con cáncer y sus acompañantes en España: una visión multidisciplinar”. La mitad de los pacientes oncológicos no participa en la toma de decisiones sobre su tratamiento.2018.

[17]

(2018)

[18]

10.1016/j.pec.2014.06.014

[19]

10.1016/j.ejon.2018.12.004

[20]

Stacey D "Shared decision making interventions: theoretical and empirical evidence with implications for health literacy" Stud Health Technol Inform (2017)

[21]

10.1136/medethics-2014-102618

[22]

10.1186/1472-6947-13-s2-s1

[23]

10.3399/bjgp15x688045

[24]

10.1002/14651858.cd006732.pub4

[25]

10.1186/s13012-016-0480-9

[26]

10.1136/bmj.g7624

[27]

10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.036

[28]

10.1046/j.1369-6513.2000.00093.x

[29]

Moher D "Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA Statement" Open Med (2009)

[30]

10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136

[31]

10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

[32]

HigginsJTJ.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 6);2019. 10.1002/9781119536604

[33]

Zhang BN "Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer (2011 edition)" Gland Surg (2012)

[34]

10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2019.02.02

[35]

10.1007/s12282-016-0672-9

[36]

10.1007/s12282-014-0563-x

[37]

10.1007/s12282-014-0550-2

[38]

Singapore Cancer Network Breast Cancer W "Singapore Cancer Network (SCAN) Guidelines for Adjuvant Trastuzumab Use in Early Stage HER2 Positive Breast Cancer" Ann Acad Med Singapore (2015) 10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.v44n10p360

[39]

Singapore Cancer Network Breast Cancer W "Singapore Cancer Network (SCAN) Guidelines for Bisphosphonate Use in the Adjuvant Breast Cancer Setting" Ann Acad Med Singapore (2015) 10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.v44n10p368

[40]

(KCE) Bhkc.Breast Cancer in Women: Diagnosis Treatment and Follow‐up.2015.

[41]

10.1093/annonc/mdz189

[42]

10.1016/j.breast.2013.03.006

[43]

10.1016/j.ejca.2012.10.004

[44]

(AGO) AGO "Diagnosis and treatment of patients with primary and metastatic" Breast Cancer (2019)

[45]

(AGO) AGO.Lesions of Uncertain Malignant Potential (B3) (ADH LIN FEA Papilloma Radial Scar).2019.

[46]

(AGO) AGO.Ductal Carcinoma in Situ. (DCIS).2019.

[47]

(AGO) AGO.Breast Cancer Surgery Oncological Aspects.2019.

[48]

(AGO) AGO.Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Surgery.2019.

[49]

(AGO) AGO.Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Pre‐ and Postmenopausal Patients.2019.

[50]

(AGO) AGO.Adjuvant Cytotoxic and Targeted Therapy.2019.

Showing 50 of 203 references

Cited By

39

Empowering women in breast cancer surgery: A systematic review of shared decision-making between mastectomy and breast conservation

Marta Maes-Carballo, Yolanda Gómez-Fandiño · 2026

Surgical Oncology

Metrics

39

Citations

203

References

Details

Published: Aug 03, 2020
Vol/Issue: 23(5)
Pages: 1045-1064
License: View

Authors

M

Marta Maes‐Carballo

Department of General Surgery Complexo Hospitalario de Ourense Ourense Spain; Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health University of Granada Granada Spain

I

Isabel Muñoz‐Núñez

Department of General Surgery Hospital de Motril Granada Spain

M

Manuel Martín‐Díaz

Department of General Surgery Hospital de Motril Granada Spain

L

Luciano Mignini

Unidad de Mastología de Grupo Oroño Rosario Argentina

A

Aurora Bueno‐Cavanillas

Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health University of Granada Granada Spain; CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP) Madrid Spain; Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria IBS Granada Spain

K

Khalid Saeed Khan

Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health University of Granada Granada Spain; CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP) Madrid Spain

Cite This Article

Marta Maes‐Carballo, Isabel Muñoz‐Núñez, Manuel Martín‐Díaz, et al. (2020). Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review. Health Expectations, 23(5), 1045-1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13112

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review

You May Also Like