Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18771875›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2008

Using decision aids in community-based primary care: a theory-driven evaluation with ethnically diverse patients.

Dominick L Frosch, France Légaré, Carol M Mangione

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Dominick L FroschDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, United States. dfrosch@mednet.ucla.edu
France Légaré
Carol M Mangione

Funding

The Center for Health Improvement of Minority ElderlyP30AG021684 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI CATHERINE A SARKISIAN · 2002 to 2026
$19.7M
UCLA OLDER AMERICANS INDEPENDENCE CENTERP30AG028748 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI MOORE, ALISON AHERN · 2006 to 2017
$9.8M
NIA NIH HHS 2P30AG021684NIA NIH HHS 5P30AG028748NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021684NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the effects of informational brochures and video decision aids about cancer screening on patient intention to engage in shared decision-making and its predictors in a racially diverse sample.

methodsParticipants were recruited from 13 community-based primary care practices serving racially and ethnically diverse patients in predominately economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Participants completed theory-based measures assessing attitudes, perceived social norms, self-efficacy and intentions for working with their physician to make a cancer screening decision after reviewing a brochure or video decision aid, but before seeing the physician. A post-questionnaire assessed screening decisions and participant knowledge.

resultsParticipants who reviewed a video decision aid had higher knowledge and were more likely to want to be the primary decision-maker. They reported lower perceived social norms, self-efficacy and intentions to work with their physicians than participants who reviewed a brochure. Participants who decided against cancer screening reported lower intentions to work with their physician in making a decision and were less likely to report having spoken with their physician about screening.

conclusionParticipants who opted against cancer screening after reviewing a brochure or decision aid were less likely to discuss their decision with their physician. The tendency toward autonomous decision-making was stronger among participants who reviewed a video decision aid.

Indexed as

Cultural DiversityDecision Support TechniquesPatient ParticipationPsychological TheoryAgedEducational MeasurementFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLos AngelesMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPamphletsPatient Education as Topic

Identifiers

PMID18771875
PMCPMC2892794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.