ArticleBMC health services research2008
Professional centred shared decision making: patient decision aids in practice in primary care.
Article in BMC health services research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- "Many miles to go …": a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Pooled it
- Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Article
- Physicians' perspective on shared decision-making in Dubai: a cross-sectional study.Human resources for health · 2020Article
- Evaluation of pelvis postural systems in spinal cord injury patients: Outcome research.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Arriba-lib: evaluation of an electronic library of decision aids in primary care physicians.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012Article
- Situationally-sensitive knowledge translation and relational decision making in hyperacute stroke: a qualitative study.PloS one · 2012Article
- What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2011Article
- Bridging the Gap: A Mixed-Methods Study on Factors Influencing Breast Cancer Clinicians' Decisions to Use Clinical Prediction Models.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient decision aids are increasingly regarded as important components of clinical practice that enable shared decision making (SDM) and evidence based patient choice. Despite broad acceptance of their value, there remains little evidence of their successful implementation in primary care settings.
methodsHealth care practitioners from five general practice surgeries in northern England participated in focus group sessions around the themes of patient decision aids, patient and practitioner preferences and SDM. Participants included general practitioners (n = 19), practice nurses (n = 5) and auxiliary staff (n = 3). Transcripts were analysed using a framework approach.
resultsWe report a) practitioners' discussion of the current impetus towards sharing decisions and their perspectives on barriers to SDM, and b) the implementation of patient decision aids in practice and impediments such as lack of an evidence base and time available in consultations.
conclusionWe demonstrate two orientations to sharing decisions: practitioner-centred and patient-centred with the former predominating. We argue that it is necessary to rethink the changes required in practice for the implementation of SDM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.