Interventions to Support Adolescents With Cancer in Decision‐Making: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

• Published in: Worldviews on evidence-based nursing 2021-12, Vol.18 (6), p.339-349
• Main Authors: Wu, Li‐Min, Huang, I‐Chin, Su, Hsiu‐Lan, Lee, Shu‐Li
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Cancer; Cancer therapies; Clinical decision making; Decision Making; Humans; Intervention; Meta-analysis; Neoplasms - therapy; Parents; Patient education; Patient Participation; pediatric cancer; Pediatrics; shared decision‐making; Teenagers; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1545-102X; 1741-6787
• DOI: 10.1111/wvn.12522

Background Adolescents have autonomous views and participatory rights. There is increasing support for involving adolescents with cancer in the healthcare decision‐making process. Aims The purpose of this study was to synthesize current knowledge to identify major components and outcomes of interventions to enhance shared decision‐making (SDM) by adolescents with cancer during and after treatment. Methods Six electronic databases (PubMed, CINHAL, MEDLINE, Cochrane, EBSCO, and Web of Science) were searched from their inceptions to February 2020. Eligibility criteria were intervention studies, studies of interventions to support adolescents with cancer involved in SDM, and studies of patients diagnosed with cancer between 10 and 18 years of age. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by using a standardized data extraction form. Quality appraisal was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Results Of 331 citations, five studies with a total of 648 participants aged between 13 and 21 years met inclusion criteria. Interventions included structured sessions held one to three times per week. SDM engagement strategies incorporated weekly assignments, live action videos, brochures, Five Wishes© advance directives, and follow‐up counseling. Treatment preference congruence in adolescent and parent dyads was higher in intervention groups. Meta‐analysis was performed on two studies and demonstrated statistically significant improvements in decision quality at 6 months (z = 3.37, p = .001; 95% CI = .174–.657) and 12 months (z = 3.17, p = .002; 95% CI = .150–.633) after SDM interventions in adolescent cancer survivors. No adverse events among patients were found, although anxiety scores increased in families in an intervention group. Linking Evidence to Action This review identified essential components of SDM interventions. Our findings may guide the future design of interventions to support high‐quality decision‐making by adolescents with cancer. Coaching can educate adolescent cancer survivors on quality decision‐making methods and can improve the quality of consequent decisions. More research is needed to determine outcomes of SDM interventions.