Endometriosis is a chronic, oestrogen-dependent condition with a wide range of symptoms and comorbidities that significantly affect physical, emotional and psychological well-being, as well as quality of life. Women with endometriosis often face complex treatment decisions with no universally accepted gold-standard therapy. Shared decision-making, supported by patient decision aids (PtDAs), can enhance patient knowledge and promote informed preferences and decisions. Digital PtDAs, in particular, offer potential for personalised, interactive and accessible decision support. Their characteristics, development process and evaluation in endometriosis care remain underexplored. The objective of this scoping review is to map the existing literature on digital PtDAs developed for women of reproductive age (18–49) with endometriosis, across a range of healthcare and digital health contexts.

This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. A comprehensive three-step search, developed with an information specialist, will be conducted across MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane databases and grey literature sources. Citations will be imported into Rayyan for screening. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction and analysis. Data will be summarised using tables and descriptive content analysis to identify key features, development processes and evaluation methods of digital PtDAs. The review will be reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.

This review started off in July 2025, and the anticipated end date is November 2025. We plan to disseminate this research through publications, presentations at relevant national and international conferences and meetings with relevant stakeholders. This scoping review protocol has been registered at Open Science Framework (osf.io/fp86m). As this scoping review will use data from published and publicly available sources, research ethics approval is not required.

To elicit the benefits of shared decision-making to doctors who are champions of this approach.

A qualitative interview study that used practical thematic analysis.

We identified a purposive international sample of doctors in active clinical practice who were recognised champions of shared decision-making, working in various clinical disciplines.

24 doctors in active clinical practice were interviewed; 14 were male and 10 were female; 20 had been in clinical practice for over 10 years (range 1–30). 12 practised in North America, 10 in Europe, 1 in South America and 1 in Asia; 4 doctors worked in internal medicine, 4 in primary care, 5 in surgery, 3 in paediatrics, 3 in oncology and 1 in each of the following disciplines: emergency medicine, palliative care, geriatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, anaesthesiology, and cardiology.

This selected sample of doctors consistently reported that shared decision-making provided benefits to themselves, their patients and their teams. Shared decision-making reinforced and enhanced their self-identity as ethical professionals, supporting patient autonomy, increasing their professional fulfilment and reducing their risk of burnout. These intrinsic benefits accompanied reports of other consequential benefits, namely, patients’ achieving better-informed, preference-sensitive decisions, a higher likelihood of improved patient outcomes, improved efficiency and team function. The doctors viewed the approach as providing connectedness, shared responsibility resulting in a lighter burden, acting as a buttress against moral injury and the emotional strain of clinical work and, where relevant, mitigation against becoming the second victim of a bad or unexpected outcome.

Doctors who champion shared decision-making report significant benefits to themselves and their patients. These benefits have not been widely reported, which has implications for motivating doctors to adopt shared decision-making. Instead of addressing presumed gaps in communication skills, it might be better to highlight the positive impact on professional fulfilment and the protective effect of shared decision-making.