Trust and world view in shared decision making with indigenous patients: A realist synthesis. Issue 2 (21st November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Groot, Gary; Waldron, Tamara; Barreno, Leonzo; Cochran, David; Carr, Tracey
• Is Part Of: Journal of evaluation in clinical practice. Volume 26:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: 503
• Page End: 514
• Publication Date: 2019-11-21
• Subjects: indigenous -- patients -- realist review -- shared decision making -- trust -- world view; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 616.005
• DOI: 10.1111/jep.13307
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1356-1294

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: How shared decision making (SDM) works with indigenous patient values and preferences is not well understood. Colonization has affected indigenous peoples' levels of trust with institutions, and their world view tends to be distinct from that of nonindigenous people. Building on a programme theory for SDM, the present research aims to refine the original programme theory to understand how the mechanisms of trust and world view might work differently for indigenous patients. Design: We used a six‐step iterative process for realist synthesis: preliminary programme theory development, search strategy development, selection and appraisal of literature, data extraction, data analysis and synthesis, and formation of a revised programme theory. Data Sources: Searches were through Medline, CINAHL, and the University of Saskatchewan iPortal for grey literature. Medline and CINAHL searches included the University of Alberta Canada‐wide indigenous peoples search filters. Data synthesis: Following screening 731 references, 90 documents were included for data extraction (53 peer reviewed and 37 grey literature). Documents from countries with similar colonization experiences were included. Results: A total of 518 context‐mechanism‐outcome (CMO) configurations were identified and synthesized into 21 CMOs for a revised programme theory. Demographics, indigenous world view, system and institutional support, language barriers, and the macro‐context of discrimination and historical abuse provided the main contexts for the programme theory. These inspired mechanisms of reciprocal respect, perception of world view acceptance, and culturally appropriate knowledge translation. In turn, these mechanisms influenced the level of trust and anxiety experienced by indigenous patients. Trust and anxiety were both mechanisms and intermediate outcomes and determined the level of engagement in SDM. Conclusion: This realist synthesis provides clinicians and policymakers a deeper understanding of the complex configurations that influence indigenous patient engagement in SDM and offers possible avenues for improvement.