Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16899124›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2006

Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions.

Karine Gravel, France Légaré, Ian D Graham

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 300 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
300citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03632850 completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Shared Decision-making: Investigating the Potential of an Interactive, Web-Based, Information Tool for People With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorBournemouth UniversityRan2019 to 2021Enrolled34ConditionsAdvanced Pancreatic CancerArmsweb-based interactive tool
NCT05689892 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Impact of a Shared Decision Making Intervention in Paediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease Therapeutic Decision-making

TypeinterventionalSponsorLondon Health Sciences CentreRan2024 to 2025Enrolled150ConditionsInflammatory Bowel Diseases, Crohn Disease, Ulcerative Colitis, IBDArmsDecision Coach Sessions
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

300 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Interventions to improve participation in health-care decisions in non-Western countries: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Shared decision-making behaviours in health professionals: a systematic review of studies based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. High deductible health plans: does cost sharing stimulate increased consumer sophistication?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Trial

240 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Karine GravelResearch Centre of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Québec, Canada. karine.gravel@crsfa.ulaval.ca
France Légaré
Ian D Graham

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision-making is advocated because of its potential to improve the quality of the decision-making process for patients and ultimately, patient outcomes. However, current evidence suggests that shared decision-making has not yet been widely adopted by health professionals. Therefore, a systematic review was performed on the barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice as perceived by health professionals.

methodsCovering the period from 1990 to March 2006, PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, PsycINFO, and Dissertation Abstracts were searched for studies in English or French. The references from included studies also were consulted. Studies were included if they reported on health professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in their practices. Shared decision-making was defined as a joint process of decision making between health professionals and patients, or as decision support interventions including decision aids, or as the active participation of patients in decision making. No study design was excluded. Quality of the studies included was assessed independently by two of the authors. Using a pre-established taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical practice guidelines in practice, content analysis was performed.

resultsThirty-one publications covering 28 unique studies were included. Eleven studies were from the UK, eight from the USA, four from Canada, two from The Netherlands, and one from each of the following countries: France, Mexico, and Australia. Most of the studies used qualitative methods exclusively (18/28). Overall, the vast majority of participants (n = 2784) were physicians (89%). The three most often reported barriers were: time constraints (18/28), lack of applicability due to patient characteristics (12/28), and lack of applicability due to the clinical situation (12/28). The three most often reported facilitators were: provider motivation (15/28), positive impact on the clinical process (11/28), and positive impact on patient outcomes (10/28).

conclusionThis systematic review reveals that interventions to foster implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice will need to address a broad range of factors. It also reveals that on this subject there is very little known about any health professionals others than physicians. Future studies about implementation of shared decision-making should target a more diverse group of health professionals.

Identifiers

PMID16899124
PMCPMC1586024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.