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

Abstract

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.

Keywords: cancer diagnosis; cancer treatment; clinical guidelines; consensus statement; sex differences; shared decision-making.