ArticlePatient education and counseling2010
Inconsistencies in patient perceptions and observer ratings of shared decision making: the case of colorectal cancer screening.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2015Pooled it
- Congruence between patients' preferred and perceived participation in medical decision-making: a review of the literature.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2014Pooled it
- Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- The COMPASS study: A prospective, randomized, multi-center trial testing the impact of a clinic-based intervention informing patients of colorectal cancer screening options on screening completion.Contemporary clinical trials · 2022Trial
- Aid-assisted decision making and colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial.American journal of preventive medicine · 2012Trial
- Patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer screening: who initiates elements of informed decision making?Journal of general internal medicine · 2012Trial
- In their own words: A qualitative study of patient narratives on daily life after breast cancer radiotherapy.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- From knowledge to action: a blended training to enhance shared decision making skills in primary care physicians - a pilot study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Shared Decision Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Article
- Association of Communication With Smoking Attitudes and Behaviors Among Patients Undergoing Lung Cancer Screening: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.CHEST pulmonary · 2025Article
- Through the Eyes of Patients: The Effect of Training General Practitioners and Nurses on Perceived Shared Decision-Making Support.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- "Mm-hm," "Uh-uh": are non-lexical conversational sounds deal breakers for the ambient clinical documentation technology?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Automatic speech recognition performance for digital scribes: a performance comparison between general-purpose and specialized models tuned for patient-clinician conversations.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022Article
- The Impact of Point-of-Care Hemoglobin A1c Testing on Population Health-Based Onsite Testing Adherence: A Primary-Care Quality Improvement Study.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021Article
- Pilot Study of Clinician-Patient Collaboration in Glaucoma.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Motives for non-adherence to colonoscopy advice after a positive colorectal cancer screening test result: a qualitative study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2020Article
- A skills network approach to physicians' competence in shared decision making.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Observational
- Elicitation of preferences in the second half of the shared decision making process needs attention; a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Humanization of care in pediatric wards: differences between perceptions of users and staff according to department type.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2020Article
- Implementation of the three good questions-A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare patient-reported and observer-rated shared decision making (SDM) use for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and evaluate patient, physician and patient-reported relational communication factors associated with patient-reported use of shared CRC screening decisions.
methodsStudy physicians are salaried primary care providers. Patients are insured, aged 50-80 and due for CRC screening. Audio-recordings from 363 primary care visits were observer-coded for elements of SDM. A post-visit patient survey assessed patient-reported decision-making processes and relational communication during visit. Association of patient-reported SDM with observer-rated elements of SDM, as well as patient, physician and relational communication factors were evaluated using generalized estimating equations.
results70% of patients preferred SDM for preventive health decisions, 47% of patients reported use of a SDM process, and only one of the screening discussions included all four elements of SDM per observer ratings. Patient report of SDM use was not associated with observer-rated elements of SDM, but was significantly associated with female physician gender and patient-reported relational communication.
conclusionInconsistencies exist between patient reports and observer ratings of SDM for CRC screening. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future studies are needed to understand whether SDM that is patient-reported, observer-rated or both are associated with informed and value-concordant CRC screening decisions.
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.