Trial reportImplementation science : IS2013
Impact of DECISION + 2 on patient and physician assessment of shared decision making implementation in the context of antibiotics use for acute respiratory infections.
Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01116076 (DECISION+), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 6 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.
DECISION+: Une Formation Pour Les médecins de Famille Sur la Prise de décision partagée Afin d'Optimiser Les décisions Cliniques Concernant l'Utilisation d'Antibiotiques Pour Les Infections aiguës Des Voies Respiratoires (IAVR)
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of shared decision making training programs for general practitioners.BMC medical education · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Patient Education and Continuing Medical Education to Promote Shared Decision-Making. A Systematic Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Pooled it
- Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Patient Preferences and Shared Decision Making in the Treatment of Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review of the Literature.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Impact of MyDiabetesPlan, a Web-Based Patient Decision Aid on Decisional Conflict, Diabetes Distress, Quality of Life, and Chronic Illness Care in Patients With Diabetes: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Effectiveness of Shared Decision-making Training Programs for Health Care Professionals Using Reflexivity Strategies: Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review.JMIR medical education · 2022Review
- In-Hospital Macro-, Meso-, and Micro-Drivers and Interventions for Antibiotic Use and Resistance: A Rapid Evidence Synthesis of Data from Canada and Other OECD Countries.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2022Review
- Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review.PloS one · 2022Article
- Perceptions of primary health care physicians about the prescription of antibiotics in Saudi Arabia: Based on the model of Theory of planned behaviour.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2021Article
- Describing pre-appointment written materials as an intervention in the context of children's NHS therapy services: A national survey.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Autonomy, power dynamics and antibiotic use in primary healthcare: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Determinants of antibiotic prescribing behaviors of primary care physicians in Hubei of China: a structural equation model based on the theory of planned behavior.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2019Article
- Genetic Counselors' Perspectives About Cell-Free DNA: Experiences, Challenges, and Expectations for Obstetricians.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Prevalence of clinically significant decisional conflict: an analysis of five studies on decision-making in primary care.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Is Shared Decision Making a Utopian Dream or an Achievable Goal?The patient · 2015Article
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
backgroundDECISION + 2, a training program for physicians, is designed to implement shared decision making (SDM) in the context of antibiotics use for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs). We evaluated the impact of DECISION + 2 on SDM implementation as assessed by patients and physicians, and on physicians' intention to engage in SDM.
methodsFrom 2010 to 2011, a multi-center, two-arm, parallel randomized clustered trial appraised the effects of DECISION + 2 on the decision to use antibiotics for patients consulting for ARTIs. We randomized 12 family practice teaching units (FPTUs) to either DECISION + 2 or usual care. After the consultation, both physicians and patients independently completed questionnaires based on the D-Option scale regarding SDM behaviors during the consultation. Patients also answered items assessing the role they assumed during the consultation (active/collaborative/passive). Before and after the intervention, physicians completed a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to measure their intention to engage in SDM. To account for the cluster design, we used generalized estimating equations and generalized linear mixed models to assess the impact of DECISION + 2 on the outcomes of interest.
resultsA total of 270 physicians (66% women) participated in the study. After DECISION + 2, patients' D-Option scores were 80.1 ± 1.1 out of 100 in the intervention group and 74.9 ± 1.1 in the control group (p = 0.001). Physicians' D-Option scores were 79.7 ± 1.8 in the intervention group and 76.3 ± 1.9 in the control group (p = 0.2). However, subgroup analyses showed that teacher physicians D-Option scores were 79.7 ± 1.5 and 73.0 ± 1.4 respectively (p = 0.001). More patients reported assuming an active or collaborative role in the intervention group (67.1%), than in the control group (49.2%) (p = 0.04). There was a significant relation between patients' and physicians' D-Option scores (p < 0.01) and also between patient-reported assumed roles and both D-Option scores (as assessed by patients, p < 0.01; and physicians, p = 0.01). DECISION + 2 had no impact on the intention of physicians to engage in SDM.
conclusionDECISION + 2 positively influenced SDM behaviors as assessed by patients and teacher physicians. Physicians' intention to engage in SDM was not affected by DECISION + 2.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov trials register no. NCT01116076.
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.