Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17327891›Full record

ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2006

Supporting patients facing difficult health care decisions: use of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework.

France Légaré, Annette C O'Connor, Ian Graham, Danielle Saucier, Luc Côté, Michel Cauchon, Line Paré

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04162288 (RCT Protocol for Evaluating an Online Training Program on Shared Decision-making About Screening for Down Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT04162288 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

RCT Protocol for Evaluating an Online Training Program on Shared Decision-making About Screening for Down Syndrome

TypeinterventionalSponsorCHU de Quebec-Universite LavalRan2019 to 2020Enrolled36ConditionsShared Decision MakingArmsOnline Training - Shared Decision Making in Prenatal Screening, Online Training - Online Training on Prenatal Screening
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. A Randomized Control Trial of a Digital Health Tool for Safer Firearm and Medication Storage for Patients with Suicide Risk.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2024
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Trust As the Foundation for Informed Decision-Making in Prenatal Genetic Screening and Diagnostic Testing: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Development of web- and mobile-based shared decision-making tools in the neurological intensive care unit.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 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

7 authors.

France LégaréDepartment of Family Medicine, Laval University, Quebec city, Quebec, Canada. France.legare@mfa.ulaval.ca
Annette C O'Connor
Ian Graham
Danielle Saucier
Luc Côté
Michel Cauchon
Line Paré

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate family physicians' views on factors that make health care decisions difficult for patients, interventions family physicians use to support patients making decisions, and interventions proposed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF).

designThirteen group discussions.

settingFive family practice units.

participantsOne hundred twenty family physicians.

interventionsThe multifaceted implementation intervention consisted of feedback from participants, a reminder at point of care, and an interactive workshop. During the workshop, family physicians were asked about their views on 2 videos both showing the concluding phase of a simulated clinical encounter with a woman facing a decision about hormone therapy. One video showed usual care; the other showed use of the ODSF process and related tools. Content was analyzed using observations by non-participants, field notes, material collected from participants during workshops, evaluation forms completed at the end of workshops, and comments written on exit questionnaires from the implementation trial.

main outcome measuresFamily physicians' views on the types of difficult decisions their patients face, the factors that make decisions difficult for patients, the interventions family physicians use to support patients' decisions, and the interventions proposed by the ODSF.

resultsThe 2 most frequently cited factors making decisions difficult for patients were experiencing uncertainty and fears about adverse outcomes. Before being introduced to the ODSF, participants had used mostly information-related strategies to provide decision support. After learning about the ODSF, participants overwhelmingly identified assessing patients' values as a priority. At the end of the workshop, the 5 changes in practice participants most frequently intended to make were, in order of importance, to assess patients' values, to ask about patients' preferred role in decision making, to screen for decisional conflict, to assess support or undue pressure on patients, and to increase patients' involvement in decision making.

conclusionThe ODSF process and related tools have the potential to broaden family physicians' views on supporting patients facing difficult decisions.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesPhysician-Patient RelationsAttitude of Health PersonnelCanadaEmotionsFamily PracticeFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMalePatient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationPhysician's RoleProfessional PracticeQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID17327891
PMCPMC1481680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.