Pediatric spine surgery is a high complexity procedure that can carry risks ranging from pain to neurological damage, and even death. This comprehensive mini review explores current best practice obtaining valid and meaningful informed consent (IC) prior to pediatric spinal surgery, including modalities that support effective comprehension and understanding. An evaluation of the literature was performed to explore understanding of surgical IC by patients or their guardians and the role of multimedia tools as a possible facilitator. The evidence discussed throughout this review, based on legal and ethical perspectives, reveals challenges faced by patients and guardians in achieving comprehension and understanding, especially when facing stressful medical situations. In this context, the introduction of multimedia tools emerges as a patient-centered strategy to help improve comprehension and decrease pre-operative uncertainty. This review highlights the need for a tailored approach in obtaining IC for pediatric patients and suggests a potential role of shared decision-making (SDM) in the surgical discussion process.

UNASSIGNED: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in the world. There are some decision-making conflicts in the management of chest pain, treatment methods, stent selection, and other aspects due to the unstable condition of CHD in the treatment stage. Although using decision aids to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) contributes to high-quality decision-making, it has not been evaluated in the field of CHD. This review systematically assessed the effects of SDM in patients with CHD.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of SDM interventions in patients with CHD from database inception to 1 June 2022 (PROSPERO [Unique identifier: CRD42022338938]). We searched for relevant studies in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wan Fang databases. The primary outcomes were knowledge and decision conflict. The secondary outcomes were satisfaction, patient participation, trust, acceptance, quality of life, and psychological condition.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 8244 studies were retrieved. After screening, ten studies were included in the analysis. Compared with the control group, SDM intervention with patient decision aids obviously improved patients\' knowledge, decision satisfaction, participation, and medical outcomes and reduced decision-making conflict. There was no significant effect of SDM on trust.
UNASSIGNED: This study showed that SDM intervention in the form of decision aids was beneficial to decision-making quality and treatment outcomes among patients with CHD. The results of SDM interventions need to be evaluated in different environments.

UNASSIGNED: The authors investigated barriers to practices that promote family involvement in mental health services, focusing on individuals with severe mental illness, their families, and mental health providers. Additionally, the authors sought to identify strategies to facilitate family involvement in mental health provision to highlight the engagement process in routine practice and propose future directions for organizations to establish a family-friendly environment.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic searches for literature published from January 1990 to March 2023 were conducted in PsycInfo, PubMed, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, and Scopus databases. Gray literature searches and backward and forward snowballing strategies were also used.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-six articles were reviewed, revealing contextual backgrounds and engagement practices that hindered family involvement. Inconsistencies in family involvement stemmed from organizational culture, societal attitudes, and providers\' negating of family expertise. Uncertainty regarding confidentiality policies and the absence of practice guidelines posed challenges for providers. Negative experiences of families within the mental health system along with variable commitment also hampered involvement. Some service users declined family involvement because of privacy concerns and differing expectations regarding the extent of involvement. Promoting a shared culture of family work, integrating practice standards, and engaging in professional development activities emerged as key strategies.
UNASSIGNED: A gap exists between implementing policies and practices for family involvement in mental health treatment. Without cultural and organizational shifts in support of working with families, the uptake of family involvement practices will remain inadequate. Each stakeholder has different perceptions of the barriers to family involvement, and family involvement will remain elusive without a shared agreement on its importance.

In the field of healthcare delivery, shared decision making (SDM) refers to a collaborative process, wherein both patients and the healthcare professionals mutually work to make informed and consensus decisions with reference to the kind of medical care that will be administered to patients. The purpose of the current review is to explore SDM in health care, ascertain the role of medical education, and identify the ways to train and assess undergraduate medical students in competencies pertaining to SDM. An extensive search of all materials related to the topic was carried out on the PubMed and Google Scholar search engines and a total of 29 articles were selected based on their suitability with the current review objectives and analyzed. Keywords used in the search include learning resources in the title alone only (viz. shared decision making [ti] AND patient [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND medical education [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND assessment [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND self-assessment [ti]; shared decision making [ti]; shared decision making [ti]). In the domain of medical education, the promotion of SDM essentially will require a multipronged approach to enable its integration into the medical curriculum. However, we must remember that mere teaching-learning methods would not improve it unless they are supplemented with assessment methods, otherwise, we will fail to deliver sustained results. In conclusion, SDM in medical education and healthcare industry represents a transformative shift from the traditional paradigm to a patient-centered approach that empowers both patients and healthcare providers, including budding medical students. The need of the hour is to advocate and encourage structured integration of SDM in the medical curriculum and support the same with periodic assessments.

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a rapid shift from in-person to virtually-delivered care. Many youth with chronic pain have the ability to access care virtually; however, little is known about the efficacy of pain care for youth with chronic pain delivered virtually when compared to in-person. Such evidence is essential to guide youth in making decisions about their care, but also to inform what options health professionals present to youth. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy of interventions that are delivered in-person versus virtually for youth with chronic pain. Five databases (i.e., CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were searched in October 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials that compare single/multimodal interventions for pediatric chronic pain delivered in-person versus virtually. A total 3638 unique studies were identified through database and other searching, two of which satisfied established criteria for inclusion in this review. Both studies compared psychological interventions delivered virtually versus in-person for youth with chronic pain and showed comparable efficacy across modalities. The planned meta-analyses could not be conducted due to different outcomes within each study that could not be combined. This systematic review highlights a critical gap in the evidence regarding the efficacy of virtually delivered interventions for youth with chronic pain. This evidence is necessary to inform treatment decisions for youth, and further research is required to develop the evidence to inform clinical interventions, especially as virtual treatments continue to be offered.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) has been presented as the preferred approach for decisions where there is more than one acceptable option and has been identified a priority feature of high-quality patient-centered care. Considering the foundation of trust between general practitioners (GPs) and patients and the variety of diseases in primary care, the primary care context can be viewed as roots of SDM. GPs are requesting training programs to improve their SDM skills leading to a more patient-centered care approach. Because of the high number of training programs available, it is important to overview these training interventions specifically for primary care and to explore how these training programs are evaluated.
METHODS: This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. Eight different databases were used in December 2022 and updated in September 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using ICROMS. Training effectiveness was analyzed using the Kirkpatrick evaluation model and categorized according to training format (online, live or blended learning).
RESULTS: We identified 29 different SDM training programs for GPs. SDM training has a moderate impact on patient (SMD 0.53 95% CI 0.15-0.90) and observer reported SDM skills (SMD 0.59 95%CI 0.21-0.97). For blended training programs, we found a high impact for quality of life (SMD 1.20 95% CI -0.38-2.78) and patient reported SDM skills (SMD 2.89 95%CI -0.55-6.32).
CONCLUSIONS: SDM training improves patient and observer reported SDM skills in GPs. Blended learning as learning format for SDM appears to show better effects on learning outcomes than online or live learning formats. This suggests that teaching facilities designing SDM training may want to prioritize blended learning formats. More homogeneity in SDM measurement scales and evaluation approaches and direct comparisons of different types of educational formats are needed to develop the most appropriate and effective SDM training format.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO: A systematic review of shared-decision making training programs in a primary care setting. PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023393385 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023393385 .

BACKGROUND: Time is often perceived as a barrier to shared decision making in cancer care. It remains unclear how time functions as a barrier and how it could be most effectively utilized.
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to describe the role of time in patient involvement, and identify strategies to overcome time-related barriers.
METHODS: Seven databases were searched for any publications on patient involvement in cancer treatment decisions, focusing on how time is used to involve patients, the association between time and patient involvement, and/or strategies to overcome time-related barriers. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to select publications and extract data. One coder thematically analyzed data, a second coder checked these analyses.
RESULTS: The analysis of 26 eligible publications revealed four themes. Time was a resource 1) to process the diagnosis, 2) to obtain/process/consider information, 3) for patients and clinicians to spend together, and 4) for patient involvement in making decisions.
CONCLUSIONS: Time is a resource throughout the treatment decision-making process, and generic strategies have been proposed to overcome time constraints.
UNASSIGNED: Clinicians could co-create decision-making timelines with patients, spread decisions across several consultations, share written information with patients, and support healthcare redesigns that allocate the necessary time.

Nudging, a controversial technique for modifying people\'s behavior in a predictable way, is claimed to preserve freedom of choice while simultaneously influencing it. Nudging had been largely confined to situations such as promoting healthy eating choices but has been employed in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis in a shift towards measures that involve significantly less choice, such as shoves and behavioral prods. Shared decision making (SDM), a method for direct involvement and autonomy, is an alternative approach to communicate risk. Predominantly peer-reviewed scientific publications from standard literature databases like PubMed, PsycInfo, and Psyndex were evaluated in a narrative review. The so-called fear nudges, as well as the dissemination of strongly emotionalizing or moralizing messages can lead to intense psycho-physical stress. The use of these nudges by specialized units during the COVID-19 pandemic generated a societal atmosphere of fear that precipitated a deterioration of the mental and physical health of the population. Major recommendations of the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) study, which are based on elements of nudging and coercive measures, do not comply with ethical principles, basic psychological principles, or evidence-based data. SDM was misused in the COVID-19 crisis, which helped to achieve one-sided goals of governments. The emphasis on utilitarian thinking is criticized and the unethical behavior of decision makers is explained by both using the concept of moral disengagement and the maturity level of coping strategies. There should be a return to an open-ended, democratic, and pluralistic scientific debate without using nudges. It is therefore necessary to return to the origins of SDM.

UNASSIGNED: To characterise existing knowledge about the design and learning outcomes of education and training programs for supported or shared decision making.
UNASSIGNED: A scoping review was performed to identify academic and grey literature, published between January 2006 and February 2022, that reported on the design and/or learning outcomes of supported or shared decision making education or training programs. Eligible literature was mapped across domains of educational design and Kirkpatrick\'s hierarchy of learning effectiveness, and then qualitatively synthesised using cross-case analysis.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 33 articles were identified (n = 7 for supported decision making and n = 26 for shared decision making) that provided education or training to supporters of persons with mental illness or substance use disorders (n = 14), dementia or neurocognitive disorders (n = 6), cognitive disability (n = 5), mixed populations (n = 1), and those receiving end-of-life care (n = 7). In their design, most programs sought specific changes in practice (behaviour) via experiential learning. Reported educational outcomes also focused on supporter behaviour, with limited evidence for how changes in learner attitudes, skills, or knowledge might be contributing to changes in supporter behaviour.
UNASSIGNED: Future education and training would benefit from a closer engagement with theories of teaching and learning, particularly those oriented towards co-design.
Existing education and training programs for supported and shared decision making have a solid focus on modifying supporter behaviour through information provision, reflective practice, and modelling and coaching desired behaviour.To fully realise supported decision making, education and training programs would benefit from a focus on program co-design and working within a socio-ecological model of supported decision making.Future evaluations of supported decision making education should draw from both quantitative and qualitative approaches, with a focus on identifying the learning processes through which education influences supporter behaviour, organisational practices, and client/patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Due to the diversity and high sensitivity of the treatment, there were difficulties and uncertainties in the breast cancer surgical decision-making process. We aimed to describe the patient\'s decision-making behaviour and shared decision-making (SDM)-related barriers and facilitators in breast cancer surgical treatment.
METHODS: We searched eight databases for qualitative studies and mixed-method studies about breast cancer patients\' surgical decision-making process from inception to March 2021. The quality of the studies was critically appraised by two researchers independently. We used a \'best fit framework approach\' to analyze and synthesize the evidence.
RESULTS: Twenty-eight qualitative studies and three mixed-method studies were included in this study. Four themes and 10 subthemes were extracted: (a) struggling with various considerations, (b) actual decision-making behaviours, (c) SDM not routinely implemented and (d) multiple facilitators and barriers to SDM.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients had various considerations of breast surgery and SDM was not routinely implemented. There was a discrepancy between information exchange behaviours, value clarification, decision support utilization and SDM due to cognitive and behavioural biases. When individuals made surgical decisions, their behaviours were affected by individual-level and system-level factors. Therefore, healthcare providers and other stakeholders should constantly improve communication skills and collaboration, and emphasize the importance of decision support, so as to embed SDM into routine practice.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review was conducted as part of a wider research entitled: Breast cancer patients\' actual participation roles in surgical decision making: a mixed method research. The results of this project helped us to better analyze and generalize patients\' views.