ArticlePloS one2013
Clinicians' involvement of patients in decision making. A video based comparison of their behavior in public vs. private practice.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Opportunities for addressing gaps in primary care shared decision-making with technology: a mixed-methods needs assessment.JAMIA open · 2019Article
- Building a platform for translational research in chronic noncommunicable diseases to address population health: lessons from NHLBI supported CRONICAS in Peru.Global heart · 2015Review
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
backgroundLittle is known about the extent to which Peruvian physicians seek to involve patients in shared decision making, or about the variation in these efforts across different settings.
objectiveTo measure the extent to which Peruvian clinicians involve their patients in decision making and to explore the differences between clinicians' behavior in private vs. public practice.
designVideographic analysis. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingSeven academic physicians who provided care to patients in a public and a private setting participate in this study. All the encounters in both settings were filmed on one random day of February 2012. APPROACH: Two raters, working independently and in duplicate used the 12-item OPTION scale to quantify the extent of physician effort to involve patients in shared decision making (with 0 indicating no effort and 100 maximum possible effort) in 58 video recordings of usual clinical encounters in private and public practice.
resultsThe mean OPTION score was 14.3 (SD 7.0). Although the OPTION score in the private setting (mean 16.5, SD 7.3) was higher than in the public setting (mean 12.3 SD 6.1) this difference was not statistically significant (p = .09).
conclusionPeruvian academic physicians in this convenience sample barely sought to involve their patients in shared decision making. Additional studies are required to confirm these results which suggest that patient-centered care remains an unfulfilled promise and a source of inequity within and across the private and the public sectors in Peru.
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.