A substance use decision aid for medically at-risk adolescents: results of a randomized controlled trial for cancer-surviving adolescents

Decision aids for cancer survivors' engagement with survivorship care services after primary treatment: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To elucidate existing decision aids (DAs) in supporting cancer survivors' decisions to engage in cancer survivorship care services after primary treatment. Secondary objectives are to assess the DA acceptability, impact of DAs, and implementation barriers.

METHODS

Databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL) were searched to collect publications from inception through September 2021. Studies describing the development or evaluation of DAs used for survivorship care services after primary cancer treatment were included. Article selection and critical appraisal were conducted independently by two authors.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies that described 13 DAs and addressed multiple survivorship care domains: prevention of recurrence/new cancers in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors and breast cancer gene mutation carriers, family building options, health insurance plans, health promotion (substance use behavior, cardiovascular disease risk reduction), advanced care planning, and post-treatment follow-up intensity. The electronic format was used to design most DAs for self-administration. The content presentation covered decisional context, options, and value clarification exercises. DAs were acceptable and associated with higher knowledge but presented inconclusive decisional outcomes. Implementation barriers included lack of design features for connectivity to care, low self-efficacy, and low perceived DA usefulness among healthcare professionals. Other survivor characteristics included age, literacy, preferred timing, and setting.

CONCLUSIONS

A diverse range of DAs exists in survivorship care services engagement with favorable knowledge outcomes. Future work should clarify the impact of DAs on decisional outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

DA characterization and suggestions for prospective developers could enhance support for cancer survivors encountering complex decisions throughout the survivorship continuum.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Systematic Review of Substance Use Measurement Tools in Adolescent and Young Adult Childhood Cancer Survivors

Substance use among adolescents and young adults (AYAs) is associated with an increased risk of poor physical and mental health outcomes. For AYA childhood cancer survivors (CCSs), substance use may also increase their likelihood of experiencing late effects. As a result, professional organizations recommend that AYA CCSs be regularly screened for risk behaviors, including substance use. The best methods for assessing these behaviors as part of clinical care for AYA CCSs, however, remain unclear. To begin to address this gap, the purpose of this study was to systematically review written substance use measures that have been used with AYA CCSs and published between 2000 and 2020. A search of PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL using terms related to substance use and AYA CCSs identified 47 articles representing 20 different written substance use measures that evaluated current substance use (i.e., use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, prescription medications taken in a manner other than as prescribed, and/or other illicit substances within the 12 months). Measures varied in domains assessed, item formats, and response formats. Results are presented alongside recommendations for selecting screening tools for use with AYA CCS populations in both clinical and research settings.

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

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.

Alcohol Use Behaviors and Reasons to Abstain From or Limit Drinking Among Medically Vulnerable Youth

BACKGROUND

Youth with chronic medical conditions (YCMC) use alcohol at levels similar to their healthy peers but face elevated risk for adverse health consequences. As salient reasons to abstain from or limit drinking (RALD) among YCMC are unknown, we sought to identify clusters of RALD and test associations with use behaviors.

METHODS

Eligible YCMC (ages 9-18) recruited from outpatient clinics reported their use behaviors and importance of potential RALD. Cluster analysis was used to discern RALD patterns, which were examined as predictors of alcohol use using multivariate regression.

RESULTS

Among 398 participants, 30.9% reported past year alcohol use. Concerns about impacts on medications, school, and disease status were the most frequently endorsed RALD; prior negative experiences with alcohol and family history were the least frequently endorsed. Five RALD clusters were identified for all YCMC and 2 for recent drinkers. Compared to the cluster with high endorsement of multiple general and health-related RALD, those predominantly citing concerns about addiction and those not strongly endorsing any RALD consistently reported greater alcohol use. Among recent drinkers, the cluster characterized by low concern across multiple RALD also consistently reported greater alcohol use compared to their counterparts expressing moderate concern.

CONCLUSIONS

For YCMC, RALD are complex but endorsement of multiple general and health-related RALD is associated with less use, and health concerns are especially prevalent. More research is needed to understand how salient RALD can inform tailored interventions that aim to delay and reduce substance use and improve health outcomes for YCMC.

Decision aids to facilitate decision making around behavior change in the field of health promotion: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To broadly synthesize literature regarding decision aids (DAs) supporting decision making about diet, physical activity, sleeping and substance use a scoping review was performed.

METHODS

Multiple sources were used: (1) Scientific literature searches, (2) excluded references from a Cochrane review regarding DAs for treatments and screenings, and (3) results from additional searches. Interventions had to (1) support informed decision making and (2) provide information and help to choose between at least two options. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts. Relevant information was extracted descriptively.

RESULTS

Thirty-five scientific articles and four DAs (grey literature) were included. Results were heterogeneous. Twenty-nine (94%) studies described substance use DAs. All DAs offered information and value and/or preference clarification. Many other elements were included (e.g., goal-setting). DA's effects were mixed. Few studies used standardized measures, e.g., decisional conflict (n = 4, 13%). Some positive behavioral effects were reported: e.g., smoking abstinence (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

This research shows only some positive behavioral effects of DAs. However, studies reported heterogeneous results/outcomes, impeding knowledge synthesis. Areas of improvement were identified, e.g., establishing which intervention elements are effective regarding health behavior decision making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

DAs can potentially be beneficial in supporting people to change health behaviors - especially regarding smoking.

Comparison of two cohorts of medically at-risk adolescents engaging in substance use (cancer survivors and asthmatics): Clinical predictors for monitoring care

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Medically at-risk adolescents differ in their perception of severity and are vulnerable to substance use because of effects on their medical regimen. The intent in comparing two cohorts, adolescent survivors of cancer and teens with asthma, is to provide clinical predictors to help in monitoring those needing help with substance use decision making.

METHODS

Baseline data were obtained from two randomized controlled trials for a decision-making program of research for medically at-risk adolescents. Multivariate analyses were used to identify clinical predictors for poor decision making as well as lifetime and current substance use (smoking, alcohol use, and marijuana use).

CONCLUSIONS

Predictors for both cohorts for lifetime and current substance use were increasing age and risk motivation. A significant predictor for both cohorts for poor decision making related to substance use was risk motivation, measured as a more positive attitude for engaging in substance use. Negative modeling by peers and family members had an impact on teen survivors' decision making; but, this was not clear for teens with asthma.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Research is needed comparing other medically at-risk adolescents to determine which cohorts on the substance use spectrum are less resilient to peer and parent modeling, have unrealistic views of their decision-making skills, and need close monitoring and guidance.

Digital Health Interventions for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors

This narrative review describes the evidence regarding digital health interventions targeting adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors. We reviewed the published literature for studies involving Internet, mHealth, social media, telehealth, and other digital interventions for AYA survivors. We highlight selected studies to illustrate the state of the research in this unique patient population. Interventions have used various digital modalities to improve health behaviors (eg, physical activity, nutrition, tobacco cessation), enhance emotional well-being, track and intervene on cancer-related symptoms, and improve survivorship care delivery. The majority of studies have demonstrated feasibility and acceptability of digital health interventions for AYA survivors, but few efficacy studies have been conducted. Digital health interventions are promising to address unmet psychosocial and health information needs of AYA survivors. Researchers should use rigorous development and evaluation methods to demonstrate the efficacy of these approaches to improve health outcomes for AYA survivors.

Challenges and opportunities in the care of survivors of adolescent and young adult cancers

Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer are an understudied group. Much of what is known about long-term outcomes after AYA cancer has been derived from cohorts of childhood cancer survivors, which seldom include patients at the older end of the AYA age spectrum. In general, AYA cancer survivors have a lower risk for premature mortality, subsequent primary neoplasms and chronic health conditions than childhood cancer survivors. However, AYA cancer survivors are vulnerable to psychosocial challenges, concerns about fertility and relationships and financial toxicity. No single model is optimal for the care of these survivors, but it is generally agreed that all survivors require a survivor care plan that promotes their adherence to evidence-based surveillance guidelines. There is a need to create survivor cohorts that include the full range of AYA ages and diagnoses to be able to address the many pressing questions that remain unanswered in this vulnerable population.

Psychological Symptoms, Social Outcomes, Socioeconomic Attainment, and Health Behaviors Among Survivors of Childhood Cancer: Current State of the Literature

The diagnosis, treatment, and medical late effects of childhood cancer may alter the psychosocial trajectory of survivors across their life course. This review of the literature focuses on mental health symptoms, achievement of social milestones, socioeconomic attainment, and risky health behaviors in survivors of childhood cancer. Results suggest that although most survivors are psychologically well adjusted, survivors are at risk for anxiety and depression compared with siblings. Although the absolute risk of suicide ideation and post-traumatic stress symptoms is low, adult survivors are at increased risk compared with controls. Moreover, young adult survivors are at risk for delayed psychosexual development, lower rates of marriage or cohabitation, and nonindependent living. Survivors' socioeconomic attainment also is reduced, with fewer survivors graduating college and gaining full-time employment. Despite risk for late health-related complications, survivors of childhood cancer generally engage in risky health behaviors at rates similar to or only slightly lower than siblings and peers. CNS tumors and CNS-directed therapies are salient risk factors for poor psychosocial outcomes. In addition, physical health morbidities resulting from cancer-directed therapies are associated with worse psychosocial functioning. Several studies support the effectiveness of cognitive and behavioral interventions to treat psychological symptoms as well as to modify health behaviors. Additional randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and long-term outcomes of intervention efforts. Future research should focus on the identification of potential genetic predispositions related to psychosocial outcomes to provide opportunities for preventive interventions among survivors of childhood cancer.

Video-based patient decision aids: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This study reviews the published literature on the use of video-based decision aids (DA) for patients. The authors describe the areas of medicine in which video-based patient DA have been evaluated, the medical decisions targeted, their reported impact, in which countries studies are being conducted, and publication trends.

METHOD

The literature review was conducted systematically using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Pubmed databases from inception to 2016. References of identified studies were reviewed, and hand-searches of relevant journals were conducted.

RESULTS

488 studies were included and organized based on predefined study characteristics. The most common decisions addressed were cancer screening, risk reduction, advance care planning, and adherence to provider recommendations. Most studies had sample sizes of fewer than 300, and most were performed in the United States. Outcomes were generally reported as positive. This field of study was relatively unknown before 1990s but the number of studies published annually continues to increase.

CONCLUSION

Videos are largely positive interventions but there are significant remaining knowledge gaps including generalizability across populations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should consider incorporating video-based DA in their patient interactions. Future research should focus on less studied areas and the mechanisms underlying effective patient decision aids.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Interventions for promoting participation in shared decision-making for children with cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane systematic review of shared decision-making (SMD) making published in 2013. Children's rights to have their views heard in matters that affect their lives are now well established since the publication of the UN Convention treaty (1989). Children with cancer generally prefer to be involved in decision-making and consider it important that they have the opportunity to take part in decision-making concerning their health care, even in end-of-life decisions. There is considerable support for involving children in healthcare decision-making at a level commensurate with their experience, age and abilities. Thus, healthcare professionals and parents need to know how they should involve children in decision-making and what interventions are most effective in promoting SDM for children with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of SDM interventions on the process of SDM for children with cancer who are aged four to 18 years.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following sources for the review: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 1); PubMed (NLM) (1946 to February 2016); Embase (Ovid) (1974 to February 2016); CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to February 2016); ERIC (ProQuest) (1966 to February 2016); PsycINFO (EBSCO) (1806 to February 2016); BIOSIS (Thomson Reuters) (1980 to December 2009 - subscription ceased at that date); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1637 to February 2016); and Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest) (1952 to February 2016). In addition we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles and the following conference proceedings (2005 up to and including 2015): American Academy on Communication in Healthcare (AACH), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Association for Communication in Healthcare (EACH), International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH), International Shared Decision Making Conference (ISDM), Annual Conference of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) and Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM). We scanned the ISRCTN (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number) register and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Register for ongoing trials on 29 February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For this update, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of SDM interventions for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. The types of decisions included were: treatment, health care and research participation decisions. The primary outcome was SDM as measured with any validated scale.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors undertook the searches, and three review authors independently assessed the studies obtained. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria, and hence no analysis could be undertaken.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No conclusions can be made on the effects of interventions to promote SDM for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality quantitative research on interventions to promote participation in SDM for children with cancer. There are many potential reasons for the lack of SDM intervention studies with children. Attitudes towards children's participation are slowly changing in society and such changes may take time to be translated or adopted in healthcare settings. The priority may be on developing interventions that promote children's participation in communication interactions since information-sharing is a prerequisite for SDM. Restricting this review to RCTs was a limitation and extending the review to non-randomised studies (NRS) may have produced more evidence. For this update, we included only RCTs and CCTs. Clearly more research is needed.