Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26729393›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Patient involvement in decision-making: a cross-sectional study in a Malaysian primary care clinic.

Ranjini Ambigapathy, Yook Chin Chia, Chirk Jenn Ng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Do socio-economically disadvantaged patients prefer shared decision-making?South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2021
    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.

Ranjini AmbigapathyDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, University of Malaya Primary Care Research Group (UMPCRG), Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Yook Chin ChiaDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, University of Malaya Primary Care Research Group (UMPCRG), Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1995-0359
Chirk Jenn NgDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, University of Malaya Primary Care Research Group (UMPCRG), Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveShared decision-making has been advocated as a useful model for patient management. In developing Asian countries such as Malaysia, there is a common belief that patients prefer a passive role in clinical consultation. As such, the objective of this study was to determine Malaysian patients' role preference in decision-making and the associated factors.

designA cross-sectional study.

settingStudy was conducted at an urban primary care clinic in Malaysia in 2012.

participantsPatients aged >21 years were chosen using systematic random sampling.

methodsConsenting patients answered a self-administered questionnaire, which included demographic data and their preferred and actual role before and after consultation. Doctors were asked to determine patients' role preference. The Control Preference Scale was used to assess patients' role preference. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Prevalence of patients' preferred role in decision-making. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (1) Actual role played by the patient in decision-making. (2) Sociodemographic factors associated with patients' preferred role in decision-making. (3) Doctors' perception of patients' involvement in decision-making.

resultsThe response rate was 95.1% (470/494). Shared decision-making was preferred by 51.9% of patients, followed by passive (26.3%) and active (21.8%) roles in decision-making. Higher household income was significantly associated with autonomous role preference (p=0.018). Doctors' perception did not concur with patients' preferred role. Among patients whom doctors perceived to prefer a passive role, 73.5% preferred an autonomous role (p=0.900, κ=0.006).

conclusionsThe majority of patients attending the primary care clinic preferred and played an autonomous role in decision-making. Doctors underestimated patients' preference to play an autonomous role.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient ParticipationPatient PreferenceAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalaysiaMaleMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsPrimary Health CareUrban HealthYoung AdultDECISION-MAKINGPATIENT PREFERENCEPHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIPPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID26729393
PMCPMC4716181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.