Search

Objectives: Evidence suggests that healthcare quality improvement (QI) projects are more successful when decision-makers are involved in the process. However, guidance regarding the engagement of decision-makers in QI projects is lacking. We conducted a scoping review to identify QI projects involving decision-makers published in the literature and to describe the roles decision-makers played., Methods: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute framework for scoping reviews, we systematically searched for all types of studies in English or French between 2002 and 2023 in: EMBASE, MEDLINE via PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Criteria for inclusion consisted of literature describing health sector QI projects that involved local, regional or system-level decision-makers. Descriptive analysis was performed. Drawing on QI and participatory research literature, the research team developed an inductive data extraction grid to provide a portrait of QI project characteristics, decision-makers' contributions, and advantages and challenges associated with their involvement., Results: After screening and review, we retained 29 references. 18 references described multi-site projects and 11 were conducted in single sites. Local decision-makers' contributions were documented in 27 of the 29 references and regional decision-makers' contributions were documented in 12. Local decision-makers were more often active participants in QI processes, contributing toward planning, implementation, change management and capacity building. Regional decision-makers more often served as initiators and supporters of QI projects, contributing toward strategic planning, recruitment, delegation, coordination of local teams, as well as assessment and capacity building. Advantages of decision-maker involvement described in the retained references include mutual learning, frontline staff buy-in, accountability, resource allocation, effective leadership and improved implementation feasibility. Considerations regarding their involvement included time constraints, variable supervisory expertise, issues concerning centralised leadership, relationship strengthening among stakeholders, and strategic alignment of frontline staff and managerial priorities CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides important insights into the various roles played by decision-makers, the benefits and challenges associated with their involvement, and identifies opportunities for strengthening their engagement. The results of this review highlight the need for practical collaboration and communication strategies that foster partnership between frontline staff and decision-makers at all levels., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Abstract Solving multiobjective optimization problems with interactive methods enables a decision maker with domain expertise to direct the search for the most preferred trade-offs with preference information and learn about the problem. There are different interactive methods, and it is important to compare them and find the best-suited one for solving the problem in question. Comparisons with real decision makers are expensive, and artificial decision makers (ADMs) have been proposed to simulate humans in basic testing before involving real decision makers. Existing ADMs only consider one type of preference information. In this paper, we propose ADM-II, which is tailored to assess several interactive evolutionary methods and is able to handle different types of preference information. We consider two phases of interactive solution processes, i.e., learning and decision phases separately, so that the proposed ADM-II generates preference information in different ways in each of them to reflect the nature of the phases. We demonstrate how ADM-II can be applied with different methods and problems. We also propose an indicator to assess and compare the performance of interactive evolutionary methods.

Purpose: In China, decisions regarding the treatment of seriously ill patients are usually made by family caregivers. This study aimed to explore the association between the primary decision-makers and the intensity of care given to patients with advanced cancer in China. Methods: We conducted a survey of family members and other caregivers representing 828 cancer patients who died between July 2013 and July 2016. The survey asked: "After the physician conveyed that the disease is incurable, what treatment did the patient and caregiver prefer?" and "Who was the primary decision-maker?" We compared the treatment intensity with locus of decision-making using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical covariates informed. Results: Of the 792 patients in our sample, the majority were male (67·2%), 60 years or older (64·0%), married (82·2%), lived with family (98·2%), had medical insurance (94·8%), earned below-average income (53·5%), lived rurally (61·5%), had a gastrointestinal cancer diagnosis (50·8%), experienced moderate or severe pain (86·3%), never received palliative care (80·4%) and had caregivers as primary decision-makers (70·6%). We found that patients were more likely to receive intensive disease-modifying treatments when the primary decision-maker were their children (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1·86, 95% CI:1·26-2·74), spouse (AOR = 2·04, 95% CI:1·26-3·30), or other caregivers (AOR = 3·46, 95% CI:1·24-9·69). Conclusions: When patients with advanced cancer in China did not make their own medical decisions, they were more likely to receive intensive disease-modifying treatments at the end-of-life. Actions should be taken to better understand and ensure that caregivers' decisions reflect the values and presence of patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.