Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19922647›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2009

Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions.

Glyn Elwyn, Dominick Frosch, Stephen Rollnick

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07269028 (Personalised and Gamification-based Decision Aid), which is not on this map. Cited by 115 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
115citing papers in PubMed, 9 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.

NCT07269028 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Personalised and Gamification-based Decision Aid (DA): a Randomized Controlled Pilot Study About Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PaviaRan2023 to 2024Enrolled248ConditionsColo-rectal CancerArmsGamified Mobile App
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

115 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Information and decision-making needs among people with mental disorders: a systematic review of the literature.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Decision aids for people considering taking part in clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. The importance and complexity of regret in the measurement of 'good' decisions: a systematic review and a content analysis of existing assessment instruments.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2011
    Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Potential Adverse Outcomes of Shared Decision Making about Palliative Cancer Treatment: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. An Evaluation of Clinical Trial Multimedia to Support Hispanic Cancer Patients' Informational and Decision-Making Needs.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

55 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.

Glyn ElwynClinical Epidemiology Interdisciplinary Research Group, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, CF14 4YS, UK. elwyng@cardiff.ac.uk
Dominick Frosch
Stephen Rollnick

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing interest in interventions that can support patients who face difficult decisions and individuals who need to modify their behaviour to achieve better outcomes. Evidence for effectiveness is used to categorize patients care. Effective care is where evidence of benefit outweighs harm: patients should always receive this type of care, where indicated. Preference-sensitive care describes a situation where the evidence for the superiority of one treatment over another is either not available or does not allow differentiation; in this situation, there are two or more valid approaches, and the best choice depends on how individuals value the risks and benefits of treatments. DISCUSSION: Preference-sensitive decisions are defined by equipoise: situations where options need to be deliberated. Moreover, where both healthcare professionals and patients agree that equipoise exists, situations may be regarded as having 'dual equipoise'. Such conditions are ideal for shared decision making. However, there are many situations in medicine where dual equipoise does not exist, where health professionals hold the view that scientific evidence for benefit strongly outweighs harm. This is often the case where people suffer from chronic conditions, and where behaviour change is recommended to improve outcomes. However, some patients, are either ambivalent or find it difficult to sustain optimal behaviours, i.e., patients will be in varying degrees of equipoise. Therefore, situations where dual equipoise exists (or not) help to clarify the definitions of two classes of support, namely, decision and behaviour change support interventions. Decision support interventions help people think about choices they face; they describe where and why choice exists, in short, conditions of dual equipoise; they provide information about options, including, where reasonable, the option of taking no action. These interventions help people to deliberate, independently or in collaboration with others, about options by considering relevant attributes; they support people to forecast how they might feel about short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes that have relevant consequences, in ways that help the process of constructing preferences and eventual decision making appropriate to their individual situation. Whereas, behavioural support interventions describe, justify, and recommend actions that, over time, lead to predictable outcomes over short, intermediate, and long-term timeframes, and that have relevant and important consequences for those who are considering behaviour change. SUMMARY: Decision and behaviour support interventions have divergent aims, different relationships to equipoise, and form two classes of interventions.

Identifiers

PMID19922647
PMCPMC2784743

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.