Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic review

Background: In cancer care, the promotion and implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and consensus statements may have potential differences by gender. Objective: To systematically analyse recommendations concerning shared decision-making in CPGs and consensus...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Rivera-Izquierdo, M., Maes Carballo, Marta, Jiménez-Moleón, J.J., Martínez-Ruiz, V., Blaakær, J., Olmedo-Requena, R., Khan, K.S., Jørgensen, J.S.
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2023
País:España
Institución:Servizo Galego de Saúde (SERGAS)
Repositorio:RUNA. Repositorio da Consellería de Sanidade e Sergas
OAI Identifier:oai:runa.sergas.gal:20.500.11940/21522
Acceso en línea:https://portalcientifico.sergas.gal//documentos/6444ee3048c3090deaa268e8
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11940/21522
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Humans
Male
Sexism
Decision Making, Shared
Consensus
Endometrial Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
AS Ourense
HP Verín
id ES_27d6f0517efefc7bdb23dbdfad4bf38c
oai_identifier_str oai:runa.sergas.gal:20.500.11940/21522
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic reviewRivera-Izquierdo, M.Maes Carballo, MartaJiménez-Moleón, J.J.Martínez-Ruiz, V.Blaakær, J.Olmedo-Requena, R.Khan, K.S.Jørgensen, J.S.HumansMaleSexismDecision Making, SharedConsensusEndometrial NeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsAS OurenseHP VerínBackground: In cancer care, the promotion and implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and consensus statements may have potential differences by gender. Objective: To systematically analyse recommendations concerning shared decision-making in CPGs and consensus statements for the most frequent cancers exclusively among males (prostate) and females (endometrial). Search Strategy: We prospectively registered the protocol at PROSPERO (ID: RD42021241127). MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and online sources (8 guideline databases and 65 professional society websites) were searched independently by two reviewers, without language restrictions. Inclusion Criteria: CPGs and consensus statements about the diagnosis or treatment of prostate and endometrial cancers were included from January 2015 to August 2021. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Quality assessment deployed a previously developed 31-item tool and differences between the two cancers analysed. Main Results: A total of 176 documents met inclusion criteria, 97 for prostate cancer (84 CPGs and 13 consensus statements) and 79 for endometrial cancer (67 CPGs and 12 consensus statements). Shared decision-making was recommended more often in prostate cancer guidelines compared to endometrial cancer (46/97 vs. 13/79, 47.4% vs. 16.5%; p <.001). Compared to prostate cancer guidelines (mean 2.14 items, standard deviation 3.45), compliance with the shared-decision-making 31-item tool was lower for endometrial cancer guidelines (mean 0.48 items, standard deviation 1.29) (p <.001). Regarding advice on the implementation of shared decision-making, it was only reported in 3 (3.8%) endometrial cancer guidelines and in 16 (16.5%) prostate cancer guidelines (p <.001). Discussion and Conclusions: We observed a significant gender bias as shared decision-making was systematically more often recommended in the prostate compared to endometrial cancer guidelines. These findings should encourage new CPGs and consensus statements to consider shared decision-making for improving cancer care regardless of the gender affected. Patient or Public Contribution: The findings may inform future recommendations for professional associations and governments to update and develop high-quality clinical guidelines to consider patients' preferences and shared decision-making in cancer care.Khalid S. Khan is a Distinguished Investigator funded by the Beatriz Galindo (senior modality) Program grant given to the University of Granada by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of the Spanish Government.2023info:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://portalcientifico.sergas.gal//documentos/6444ee3048c3090deaa268e8http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11940/21522reponame:RUNA. Repositorio da Consellería de Sanidade e Sergasinstname:Servizo Galego de Saúde (SERGAS)Ingléshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:runa.sergas.gal:20.500.11940/215222026-06-12T08:40:47Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic review
title Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic review
spellingShingle Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic review
Rivera-Izquierdo, M.
Humans
Male
Sexism
Decision Making, Shared
Consensus
Endometrial Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
AS Ourense
HP Verín
title_short Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic review
title_full Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic review
title_fullStr Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic review
title_sort Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic review
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Rivera-Izquierdo, M.
Maes Carballo, Marta
Jiménez-Moleón, J.J.
Martínez-Ruiz, V.
Blaakær, J.
Olmedo-Requena, R.
Khan, K.S.
Jørgensen, J.S.
author Rivera-Izquierdo, M.
author_facet Rivera-Izquierdo, M.
Maes Carballo, Marta
Jiménez-Moleón, J.J.
Martínez-Ruiz, V.
Blaakær, J.
Olmedo-Requena, R.
Khan, K.S.
Jørgensen, J.S.
author_role author
author2 Maes Carballo, Marta
Jiménez-Moleón, J.J.
Martínez-Ruiz, V.
Blaakær, J.
Olmedo-Requena, R.
Khan, K.S.
Jørgensen, J.S.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Humans
Male
Sexism
Decision Making, Shared
Consensus
Endometrial Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
AS Ourense
HP Verín
topic Humans
Male
Sexism
Decision Making, Shared
Consensus
Endometrial Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
AS Ourense
HP Verín
description Background: In cancer care, the promotion and implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and consensus statements may have potential differences by gender. Objective: To systematically analyse recommendations concerning shared decision-making in CPGs and consensus statements for the most frequent cancers exclusively among males (prostate) and females (endometrial). Search Strategy: We prospectively registered the protocol at PROSPERO (ID: RD42021241127). MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and online sources (8 guideline databases and 65 professional society websites) were searched independently by two reviewers, without language restrictions. Inclusion Criteria: CPGs and consensus statements about the diagnosis or treatment of prostate and endometrial cancers were included from January 2015 to August 2021. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Quality assessment deployed a previously developed 31-item tool and differences between the two cancers analysed. Main Results: A total of 176 documents met inclusion criteria, 97 for prostate cancer (84 CPGs and 13 consensus statements) and 79 for endometrial cancer (67 CPGs and 12 consensus statements). Shared decision-making was recommended more often in prostate cancer guidelines compared to endometrial cancer (46/97 vs. 13/79, 47.4% vs. 16.5%; p <.001). Compared to prostate cancer guidelines (mean 2.14 items, standard deviation 3.45), compliance with the shared-decision-making 31-item tool was lower for endometrial cancer guidelines (mean 0.48 items, standard deviation 1.29) (p <.001). Regarding advice on the implementation of shared decision-making, it was only reported in 3 (3.8%) endometrial cancer guidelines and in 16 (16.5%) prostate cancer guidelines (p <.001). Discussion and Conclusions: We observed a significant gender bias as shared decision-making was systematically more often recommended in the prostate compared to endometrial cancer guidelines. These findings should encourage new CPGs and consensus statements to consider shared decision-making for improving cancer care regardless of the gender affected. Patient or Public Contribution: The findings may inform future recommendations for professional associations and governments to update and develop high-quality clinical guidelines to consider patients' preferences and shared decision-making in cancer care.
publishDate 2023
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2023
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://portalcientifico.sergas.gal//documentos/6444ee3048c3090deaa268e8
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11940/21522
url https://portalcientifico.sergas.gal//documentos/6444ee3048c3090deaa268e8
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11940/21522
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:RUNA. Repositorio da Consellería de Sanidade e Sergas
instname:Servizo Galego de Saúde (SERGAS)
instname_str Servizo Galego de Saúde (SERGAS)
reponame_str RUNA. Repositorio da Consellería de Sanidade e Sergas
collection RUNA. Repositorio da Consellería de Sanidade e Sergas
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869404910894710784
score 15,812429

Similares en LA Referencia