Trial reportHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2011
Patient-physician agreement on the content of CHD prevention discussions.
Trial report in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical decision guidance by an automated, brachial cuff-based cardiac output assessment in patients with shock under treatment: a pilot study in Athens, Greece.Acute and critical care · 2025Article
- Patient-physician agreement on function and pain is associated with long-term outcomes in sarcoma: findings from a longitudinal study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
- Physician-patient agreement on physicians' communication skills and visit satisfaction in dermatology clinics: a one-with-many design.Health psychology report · 2022Article
- Disease self-management in patients with moderate COPD: a thematic analysis.European clinical respiratory journal · 2020Article
- Decision aid use during post-biopsy consultations for localized prostate cancer.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Article
- Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale - an attempt to establish convergent validity.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Article
- Kappa statistic for clustered dichotomous responses from physicians and patients.Statistics in medicine · 2013Article
- Shared decision making: vision to reality.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about agreement between patients and physicians on content and outcomes of clinical discussions. A common perception of content and outcomes may be desirable to optimize decision making and clinical care.
objectiveTo determine patient-physician agreement on content and outcomes of coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention discussions.
designCross-sectional survey nested within a randomized CHD prevention study. SETTING AND
participantsUniversity internal medicine clinic; 24 physicians and 157 patients.
methodsFollowing one clinic visit, we surveyed patients and physicians on discussion content, decision making and final decisions about CHD prevention. For comparison, we audio-recorded, transcribed and coded 20 patient-physician visits. We calculated percent agreement between patient/physician reports, patient/transcription reports and physician/transcription reports. We calculated Cohen's kappas to compare patient/physician perspectives.
resultsPatients and physicians agreed on whether CHD was discussed in 130 visits (83%; kappa = 0.55; 95% CI 0.40-0.70). When discussions occurred, they agreed about discussion content (pros versus cons) in 53% of visits (kappa = 0.15; 95% CI -0.01-0.30) and physicians' recommendations in 73% (kappa = 0.44; 95% CI 0.28-0.66). Patients and physicians agreed on final decisions to take medication in 78% (kappa = 0.58; 95% CI 0.45-0.71) and change lifestyle in 69% (kappa = 0.38; 95% CI 0.24-0.53). They agreed less often, 43% (kappa = 0.13; 95% CI -0.11-0.37) about degree of involvement in decision making. Audio-recorded results were similar, but showed very low agreement between transcripts and patients' and physicians' self-report on discussion content and decision making.
conclusionsDisagreements about clinical discussions and decision making may be common. Future work is needed to determine: how widespread such agreements are; whether they impact clinical outcomes; and the relative importance of the subjective experience versus objective steps of shared decision making.
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.