ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Shared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as the preferred method of choosing a suitable treatment option. However, patient involvement in treatment decision-making is not yet common practice in the field of vascular surgery. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to explore patients' decision-making preferences and to investigate which facilitators and barriers patients perceive as important for the application of SDM in vascular surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: Patients were invited to participate after visiting the vascular surgical outpatient clinic of an Academic Medical Center in the Netherlands. A treatment decision was made during the consultation for an abdominal aortic aneurysm or peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Patients filled in a number of questionnaires (quantitative part) and a random subgroup of patients participated in an in-depth interview (qualitative part). RESULTS: A total of 67 patients participated in this study. 58 per cent of them (n=39) indicated that they preferred a shared role in decision-making. In more than half of the patients (55%; n=37) their preferred role was in disagreement with what they had experienced. 31 per cent of the patients (n=21) preferred a more active role in the decision-making process than they had experienced. Patients indicated a good patient-doctor relationship as an important facilitator for the application of SDM. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of vascular surgical patients preferred, but did not experience a shared role in the decision-making process, although the concept of SDM was insufficiently clear to some patients. This emphasises the importance of explaining the concept of SDM and implementing it in the clinical encounter.
Subject(s)
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/surgery , Arterial Occlusive Diseases/surgery , Decision Making , Patient Participation , Patient Preference , Peripheral Arterial Disease/surgery , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Attitude to Health , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Physician-Patient Relations , Qualitative Research , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vascular Surgical ProceduresABSTRACT
Skin substitutes are increasingly used in the treatment of various types of acute and chronic wounds. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of skin substitutes on ulcer healing and limb salvage in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Randomized clinical trials were searched and assessed following the methodology of The Cochrane Collaboration. We included 17 trials, totaling 1655 randomized participants. Risk of bias was variable among included trials. Thirteen trials compared the skin substitutes with standard care. The pooled results showed that that skin substitutes can, in addition to standard care, increase the likelihood of achieving complete ulcer closure compared with standard care alone after 6-16 weeks (risk ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-1.85). Four of the included trials compared two types of skin substitutes but no particular product showed a superior effect over another. Two trials reported on total incidence of lower limb amputations. Pooling the results of these two trials yielded a statistically significantly lower amputation rate among patients treated with skin substitutes (risk ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.81), although the absolute risk difference was small (-0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01). This systematic review provides evidence that skin substitutes can, in addition to standard care, increase the likelihood of achieving complete ulcer closure compared with standard care alone in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. However, effectiveness on the long term, including lower limb salvage and recurrence, is currently lacking and cost-effectiveness is unclear.
