The Effects of Shared Decision Making on Cancer Screening – A Systematic Review

s from the MEDLINE search (n=1640) were reviewed in duplicate, independently by investigators and co-investigators. Abstracts from the CINAHL (n=460) and PsycINFO (n=268) searches were reviewed by a co-investigator. Each article identified for full-text review was independently reviewed by 2 investigators or co-investigators. We included RCTs comparing a SDM intervention to usual care (UC), alternative SDM interventions, or a combination. We included studies that evaluated SDM interventions for cancer screening as part of the study, excluding studies in which participants made hypothetical cancer screening choices. We included studies involving adults in a clinic setting, either at or shortly before an appointment, as a component to encourage SDM with the clinician. To ensure that we did not include interventions that encouraged screening, we excluded studies that measured only Decision Action (not Decision Quality or Decision Impact) and studies evaluating interventions with the stated goal of promoting screening. Excluded articles are presented in Appendix B. Shared Decision Making for Cancer Screening Evidence-based Synthesis Program 17 9CONTENTS 34 DATA ABSTRACTION Study characteristics (population; sample age, gender, and race; study setting; length of followup), SDM intervention characteristics (format, delivery mode, delivery timing/location, inclusion of values clarification exercise, risk communication method, consideration of vulnerable populations, resources required), and outcomes (Decision Quality, Decision Impact, and Decision Action) were extracted onto evidence tables by one investigator or co-investigator and verified by a second.