SynthesisBMC research notes2016
Evaluating the quality of shared decision making during the patient-carer encounter: a systematic review of tools.
Synthesis in BMC research notes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Measuring shared decision making in oncology: Development and first testing of the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician questionnaires.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Pooled it
- The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Comparison of audio vs. audio + video for the rating of shared decision making in oncology using the observer OPTIONBMC health services research · 2018Trial
- Perceived Algorithmic Care Intensity and Older Adults' Autonomy in Community Smart Care: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Toward the Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Korean Clinical Practice: Study Protocol for a Foundational Research Project.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Shared Decision-Making Tools Implemented in the Electronic Health Record: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Effects of decision aids for depression treatment in adults: systematic review.BJPsych bulletin · 2022Review
- A scoping review and assessment of essential elements of shared decision-making of parent-involved interventions in child and adolescent mental health.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2021Article
- Religiosity Level and Mammography Performance Among Arab and Jewish Women in Israel.Journal of religion and health · 2021Article
- Ready for SDM: evaluating a train-the-trainer program to facilitate implementation of SDM training in Norway.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Observational
- Five Golden Rings to Measure Patient-Centered Care in Rheumatology.Arthritis care & research · 2020Review
- Article
- Discrepancy in Ratings of Shared Decision Making Between Patients and Health Professionals: A Cross Sectional Study in Mental Health Care.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Does Shared Decision Making Actually Occur in the Emergency Department? Looking at It from the Patients' Perspective.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Measuring what really matters: Screening in primary care.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- Do Shared Decision-Making Measures Reflect Key Elements of Shared Decision Making? A Content Review of Coding Schemes.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019Article
- Evaluation of a shared decision-making communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma: a mixed methods study using simulated patients.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Impact of Timing on Measurement of Decision Quality and Shared Decision Making: Longitudinal Cohort Study of Breast Cancer Patients.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe concept of shared decision making (SDM) has been developing in many countries since the 1990s. The main challenge of SDM, based on the principles of respect for the person's autonomy, is to improve patients' participation, should they so wish, in decisions concerning their personal health. To our knowledge, there is only one SDM evaluation tool validated in metropolitan French that does not measure the entire SDM construct. The aim of this review was to identify existing and validated SDM measurement tools to determine which of them could be adapted in French to cover all the dimensions of SDM.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted based on articles found in the PubMed and PsycINFO bibliographic databases and published between 2010 and 2014. Studies were included if the main goal of the article was the development and psychometric validation of an SDM measurement tool, not specific to any given disease or situation, in English, French and Spanish. We used the nine essential elements of the Makoul and Clayman's integrative model to describe the different existing tools.
resultsNineteen studies were included. Seven new tools had been published since Scholl's previous review in 2011. We observed a recent spread of the multi-appraiser approach, which combines points of view of patients, healthcare professionals and sometimes external observers. Several models were used for the development of the seven newly identified tools. None of the identified tools assessed the nine elements of the Makoul's model. Three of these elements, however, were systematically measured in each of the new tools: "defining/explaining the problem", "patient values/preferences", and "checking/clarifying understanding".
conclusionsWe identified several potentially interesting tools for the French context which could cover the whole elements of Makoul's model. The next step will be the development of a French-language instrument based on these tools.
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.