Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to change health professionals' behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under "what materials?" we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses. RESULTS: Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: "brief name" (87/87, 100%), "why" (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and "what" (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were "materials" (29/87, 33%), "who" (23/87, 26%), and "when and how much" (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: "tailoring" (8/87, 9%), "modifications" (3/87, 4%), and "how well (actual)" (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported "How", (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.

Shared decision making in Argentina in 2017.

Argentina is a high-middle income country located in Southern South America with an estimated population of 44 million inhabitants. The epidemiological profile of the population is characterised by an increase of non-communicable diseases. The health system is heterogeneous, fragmented and loosely integrated. There are no unified research agenda or government initiatives encouraging the implementation of and research on shared decision making (SDM). Progress has been made lately to respect patient autonomy through the enactment of the 'Patients' Rights Act', which expressly enshrines the right of patients to get information as a key element of decision-making. To our knowledge, the team at the Department of Family and Community Medicine of the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires is the only one working on shared decision making in Argentina. This department carries out research, medical undergraduate and graduate training, and clinical practice implementation activities through strategies aimed at professionals and patients alike. We face some challenges regarding SDM, such as: 1) the fragmentation and the heterogeneity of the local health system; 2) we are a small group of people working on this topic who, simultaneously, have care, management, teaching and research responsibilities; 3) we have no government support and project funding is scarce; 4) due to the geographic location of the country, we must make a great effort in order to attend events on the state of the art in SDM. Given the current state of our health system, we believe the government is not likely to encourage, implement or research on SDM in the short term. Our group will continue to work on the local initiative and also to instil it in other interested groups.