Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20860776›Full record

SynthesisHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2011

The importance and complexity of regret in the measurement of 'good' decisions: a systematic review and a content analysis of existing assessment instruments.

Natalie Joseph-Williams, Adrian Edwards, Glyn Elwyn

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Extent and Predictors of Decision Regret among Informal Caregivers Making Decisions for a Loved One: A Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. The ethical permissibility of financial incentives.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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.

Natalie Joseph-WilliamsDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Cardiff, UK. josephnj1@cardiff.ac.uk
Adrian Edwards
Glyn Elwyn

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledBACKGROUND OR CONTEXT: Regret is a common consequence of decisions, including those decisions related to individuals' health. Several assessment instruments have been developed that attempt to measure decision regret. However, recent research has highlighted the complexity of regret. Given its relevance to shared decision making, it is important to understand its conceptualization and the instruments used to measure it.

objectivesTo review current conceptions of regret. To systematically identify instruments used to measure decision regret and assess whether they capture recent conceptualizations of regret. SEARCH STRATEGY: Five electronic databases were searched in 2008. Search strategies used a combination of MeSH terms (or database equivalent) and free text searching under the following key headings: 'Decision' and 'regret' and 'measurement'. Follow-up manual searches were also performed. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Articles were included if they reported the development and psychometric testing of an instrument designed to measure decision regret, or the use of a previously developed and tested instrument. MAIN

resultsThirty-two articles were included: 10 report the development and validation of an instrument that measures decision regret and 22 report the use of a previously developed and tested instrument. Content analysis found that existing instruments for the measurement of regret do not capture current conceptualizations of regret and they do not enable the construct of regret to be measured comprehensively.

conclusionsExisting instrumentation requires further development. There is also a need to clarify the purpose for using regret assessment instruments as this will, and should, focus their future application.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEmotionsData CollectionHumansPatient ParticipationPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID20860776
PMCPMC5060557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.