To broadly synthesize literature regarding decision aids (DAs) supporting decision making about diet, physical activity, sleeping and substance use a scoping review was performed.
Multiple sources were used: (1) Scientific literature searches, (2) excluded references from a Cochrane review regarding DAs for treatments and screenings, and (3) results from additional searches. Interventions had to (1) support informed decision making and (2) provide information and help to choose between at least two options. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts. Relevant information was extracted descriptively.
Thirty-five scientific articles and four DAs (grey literature) were included. Results were heterogeneous. Twenty-nine (94%) studies described substance use DAs. All DAs offered information and value and/or preference clarification. Many other elements were included (e.g., goal-setting). DA\'s effects were mixed. Few studies used standardized measures, e.g., decisional conflict (n = 4, 13%). Some positive behavioral effects were reported: e.g., smoking abstinence (n = 1).
This research shows only some positive behavioral effects of DAs. However, studies reported heterogeneous results/outcomes, impeding knowledge synthesis. Areas of improvement were identified, e.g., establishing which intervention elements are effective regarding health behavior decision making.
DAs can potentially be beneficial in supporting people to change health behaviors - especially regarding smoking.

Mammographic screening contributes to a reduction in specific mortality, but it has disadvantages. Decision aids are tools designed to support people\'s decisions. Because these aids influence patient choice, their quality is crucial. The objective of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of decision aids developed for women eligible for mammographic screening who have an average breast cancer risk and to assess the quality of these aids. The systematic review included articles published between January 1, 1997, and August 1, 2019, in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycInfo databases. The studies were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers. Any study containing a decision aid for women eligible for mammographic screening with an average breast cancer risk was included. Two double-blind reviewers assessed the quality of the selected decision aids using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument, version 3 (IPDASi). Twenty-three decision aids were extracted. Classification of decision aid quality using the IPDASi demonstrated large variations among the decision aids (maximum IPDASi score, 188; mean ± SD score, 132.6 ± 23.8; range, 85-172). Three decision aids had high overall scores. The 3 best-rated dimensions were disclosure (maximum score, 8; mean score, 6.8), focusing on transparency; information (maximum score, 32; mean score, 26.1), focusing on the provision of sufficient details; and probabilities (maximum score, 32; mean score 25), focusing on the presentation of probabilities. The 3 lowest-rated dimensions were decision support technology evaluation (maximum score, 8; mean score, 4.3), focusing on the effectiveness of the decision aid; development (maximum score, 24; mean score, 12.6), evaluating the development process; and plain language (maximum score, 4; mean score, 1.9), assessing appropriateness for patients with low literacy. The results of this review identified 3 high-quality decision aids for breast cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare is a knowledge driven process and thus knowledge management and the tools to manage knowledge in healthcare sector are gaining attention. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate knowledge management implementation and knowledge management tools used in healthcare for informed decision making.
METHODS: Three databases, two journals websites and Google Scholar were used as sources for the review. The key terms used to search relevant articles include: \"Healthcare and Knowledge Management\"; \"Knowledge Management Tools in Healthcare\" and \"Community of Practices in healthcare\".
RESULTS: It was found that utilization of knowledge management in healthcare is encouraging. There exist numbers of opportunities for knowledge management implementation, though there are some barriers as well. Some of the opportunities that can transform healthcare are advances in health information and communication technology, clinical decision support systems, electronic health record systems, communities of practice and advanced care planning.
CONCLUSIONS: Providing the right knowledge at the right time, i.e., at the point of decision making by implementing knowledge management in healthcare is paramount. To do so, it is very important to use appropriate tools for knowledge management and user-friendly system because it can significantly improve the quality and safety of care provided for patients both at hospital and home settings.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM), an integrative patient-provider communication process emphasizing discussion of scientific evidence and patient/family values, may improve quality care delivery, promote evidence-based practice, and reduce overuse of surgical care. Little is known, however, regarding SDM in elective surgical practice. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize findings of studies evaluating use and outcomes of SDM in elective surgery.
METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS electronic databases.
METHODS: We searched for English-language studies (January 1, 1990, to August 9, 2015) evaluating use of SDM in elective surgical care where choice for surgery could be ascertained. Identified studies were independently screened by 2 reviewers in stages of title/abstract and full-text review. We abstracted data related to population, study design, clinical dilemma, use of SDM, outcomes, treatment choice, and bias.
RESULTS: Of 10,929 identified articles, 24 met inclusion criteria. The most common area studied was spine (7 of 24), followed by joint (5 of 24) and gynecologic surgery (4 of 24). Twenty studies used decision aids or support tools, including modalities that were multimedia/video (13 of 20), written (3 of 20), or personal coaching (4 of 20). Effect of SDM on preference for surgery was mixed across studies, showing a decrease in surgery (9 of 24), no difference (8 of 24), or an increase (1 of 24). SDM tended to improve decision quality (3 of 3) as well as knowledge or preparation (4 of 6) while decreasing decision conflict (4 of 6).
CONCLUSIONS: SDM reduces decision conflict and improves decision quality for patients making choices about elective surgery. While net findings show that SDM may influence patients to choose surgery less often, the impact of SDM on surgical utilization cannot be clearly ascertained.