Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Aug;33(8):2813-2828.
doi: 10.1111/jocn.17118. Epub 2024 Apr 29.

Effectiveness of interventions to enhance shared decision-making in wound care: A systematic review

Victoria J Clemett  1 , Tanya Graham  1 , Sue Woodward  1 , Patricia Grocott  1
Affiliations

Effectiveness of interventions to enhance shared decision-making in wound care: A systematic review

Victoria J Clemett et al. J Clin Nurs. 2024 Aug.

Abstract

Aims: To explore the effectiveness of interventions to enhance patient participation in shared decision-making in wound care and tissue viability.

Background: Caring for people living with a wound is complex due to interaction between wound healing, symptoms, psychological wellbeing and treatment effectiveness. To respond to this complexity, there has been recent emphasis on the importance of delivering patient centred wound care and shared decision-making to personalise health care. However, little is known about the effectiveness of existing interventions to support shared decision-making in wound care.

Design: Systematic review of interventional studies to enhance shared decision-making in wound care or tissue viability. This was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines 2020.

Methods: Interventional primary research studies published in English up to January 2023 were included. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were undertaken independently by two authors.

Data sources: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (trials database), CINAHL, British Nursing Index (BNI), WorldCat (thesis database), Scopus and registries of ongoing studies (ISRCTN registry and clinicaltrials.gov).

Results: 1063 abstracts were screened, and eight full-text studies included. Findings indicate, interventions to support shared decision-making are positively received. Goal or need setting components may assist knowledge transfer between patient and clinician, and could lower short term decisional conflict. However, generally findings within this study had very low certainty due to the inconsistencies in outcomes reported, and the variation and complexity of single and multiple interventions used.

Conclusions: Future research on shared decision-making interventions in wound care should include the involvement of stakeholders and programme theory to underpin the interventions developed to consider the complexity of interventions.

Implications for the profession and patient care: Patients setting out their needs or goals and exploring patient questions are important and should be considered in clinical care.

Registration: The review protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO database: CRD42023389820).

No patient or public contribution: Not applicable as this is a systematic review.

Keywords: decision‐making, shared; health knowledge, attitudes, practice; patient preference; patient‐centred care; systematic review; tissue viability; wounds and injuries.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Atkin, L., Bućko, Z., Montero, E. C., Cutting, K., Moffatt, C., Probst, A., Romanelli, M., Schultz, G. S., & Tettelbach, W. (2019). Implementing TIMERS: The race against hard‐to‐heal wounds. Journal of Wound Care, 28(Sup3a), S1–S50. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2019.28.Sup3a.S1
    1. Blome, C., Baade, K., Sebastian Debus, E., Price, P., & Augustin, M. (2014). The "Wound‐QoL": A short questionnaire measuring quality of life in patients with chronic wounds based on three established disease‐specific instruments. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 22(4), 504–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12193
    1. Bravo, P., Härter, M., McCaffery, K., Giguère, A., Hahlweg, P., & Elwyn, G. (2022). Editorial: 20 years after the start of international Shared Decision‐Making activities: Is it time to celebrate? Probably. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, 171, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2022.05.009
    1. Campbell, R., Ju, A., King, M. T., & Rutherford, C. (2022). Perceived benefits and limitations of using patient‐reported outcome measures in clinical practice with individual patients: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Quality of Life Research: an International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 31(6), 1597–1620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136‐021‐03003‐z
    1. Chaboyer, W., Bucknall, T., Webster, J., McInnes, E., Gillespie, B. M., Banks, M., Whitty, J. A., Thalib, L., Roberts, S., Tallott, M., Cullum, N., & Wallis, M. (2016). The effect of a patient centred care bundle intervention on pressure ulcer incidence (INTACT): A cluster randomised trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 64, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.09.015

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources