ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2012
A qualitative study of professional and client perspectives on information flows and decision aid use.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators for GPs in dementia advance care planning: A systematic integrative review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Investigating active ingredients in a complex intervention: a nested study within the Patient and Decision Aids (PANDAs) randomised controlled trial for people with type 2 diabetes.BMC research notes · 2014Trial
- "That would be such a game changer": a qualitative study of the acceptability and feasibility of a digital harm reduction support tool among people who use drugs.Harm reduction journal · 2026Article
- "That would be such a game changer": A qualitative study of the acceptability and feasibility of a digital harm reduction support tool among people who use drugs.Research square · 2025Article
- Shared decision-making in persons living with dementia: A scoping review.Dementia (London, England) · 2023Article
- Factors Influencing Pregnant Women's Use of Patient Decision Aids and Decision Making on Prenatal Screening: A Qualitative Study.Journal of family & reproductive health · 2020Article
- The importance of trust-based relations and a holistic approach in advance care planning with people with dementia in primary care: a qualitative study.BMC geriatrics · 2018Article
- Use of a patient decision aid for prenatal screening for Down syndrome: what do pregnant women say?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis paper explores the meanings given by a diverse range of stakeholders to a decision aid aimed at helping carers of people in early to moderate stages of dementia (PWD) to select community based respite services. Decision aids aim to empower clients to share decision making with health professionals. However, the match between health professionals' perspectives on decision support needs and their clients' perspective is an important and often unstudied aspect of decision aid use.
methodsA secondary analysis was undertaken of qualitative data collected as part of a larger study. The data included twelve interviews with carers of people with dementia, three interviews with expert advisors, and three focus groups with health professionals. A theoretical analysis was conducted, drawing on theories of 'positioning' and professional identity.
resultsHealth professionals are seen to hold varying attitudes and beliefs about carers' decision support needs, and these appeared to be grounded in the professional identity of each group. These attitudes and beliefs shaped their attitudes towards decision aids, the information they believed should be offered to dementia carers, and the timing of its offering. Some groups understood carers as needing to be protected from realistic information and consequently saw a need to filter information to carer clients.
conclusionHealth professionals' beliefs may cause them to restrict information flows, which can limit carers' ability to make decisions, and limit health services' ability to improve partnering and shared decision making. In an era where information is freely available to those with the resources to access it, we question whether health professionals should filter information.
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.