ArticleImplementation science : IS2014
Evidence summaries (decision boxes) to prepare clinicians for shared decision-making with patients: a mixed methods implementation study.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Developing a Two-Sided Decision Box to Facilitate Shared Decision-Making for Switching From Conventional to Pharmacokinetic-Tailored Prophylaxis in Haemophilia.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2025Pooled it
- Perceptions and Acceptability ofHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Shared Decision-Making Training in Family Medicine Residency: A Scoping Review.Korean journal of family medicine · 2024Article
- Changes in intention to use an interprofessional approach to decision-making following training: a cluster before-and-after study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Decision aids to assist patients and professionals in choosing the right treatment for kidney failure.Clinical kidney journal · 2023Review
- Decision-makers' experiences with rapid evidence summaries to support real-time evidence informed decision-making in crises: a mixed methods study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- What Works in Implementing Patient Decision Aids in Routine Clinical Settings? A Rapid Realist Review and Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Review
- The Ethic of Responsibility: Max Weber's Verstehen and Shared Decision-Making in Patient-Centred Care.The Journal of medical humanities · 2021Article
- User-centered and theory-based design of a professional training program on shared decision-making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders: a mixed-methods study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- User-Centered Design and Evaluation of a Web-Based Decision Aid for Older Adults Living With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Their Health Care Providers: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Professional training on shared decision making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders: a mixed-methods implementation study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Usability of the 'Kinect-ing' with Clinicians Website: A Knowledge Translation Resource Supporting Decisions About Active Videogame Use in Rehabilitation.Games for health journal · 2018Article
- Article
- Five shared decision-making tools in 5 months: use of rapid reviews to develop decision boxes for seniors living with dementia and their caregivers.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Role of Psychosocial Factors and Health Literacy in Pregnant Women's Intention to Use a Decision Aid for Down Syndrome Screening: A Theory-Based Web Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Article
- Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of decision boxes on shared decision-making processes.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Article
- Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision boxes (Dboxes) provide clinicians with research evidence about management options for medical questions that have no single best answer. Dboxes fulfil a need for rapid clinical training tools to prepare clinicians for clinician-patient communication and shared decision-making. We studied the barriers and facilitators to using the Dbox information in clinical practice.
methodsWe used a mixed methods study with sequential explanatory design. We recruited family physicians, residents, and nurses from six primary health-care clinics. Participants received eight Dboxes covering various questions by email (one per week). For each Dbox, they completed a web questionnaire to rate clinical relevance and cognitive impact and to assess the determinants of their intention to use what they learned from the Dbox to explain to their patients the advantages and disadvantages of the options, based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Following the 8-week delivery period, we conducted focus groups with clinicians and interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Dbox information.
resultsOne hundred clinicians completed the web surveys. In 54% of the 496 questionnaires completed, they reported that their practice would be improved after having read the Dboxes, and in 40%, they stated that they would use this information for their patients. Of those who would use the information for their patients, 89% expected it would benefit their patients, especially in that it would allow the patient to make a decision more in keeping with his/her personal circumstances, values, and preferences. They intended to use the Dboxes in practice (mean 5.6±1.2, scale 1-7, with 7 being "high"), and their intention was significantly related to social norm, perceived behavioural control, and attitude according to the TPB (P<0.0001). In focus groups, clinicians mentioned that co-interventions such as patient decision aids and training in shared decision-making would facilitate the use of the Dbox information. Some participants would have liked a clear "bottom line" statement for each Dbox and access to printed Dboxes in consultation rooms.
conclusionsDboxes are valued by clinicians. Tailoring of Dboxes to their needs would facilitate their implementation in practice.
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.