SynthesisPloS one2017
Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies-A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 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
82 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- All together now - patient engagement, patient empowerment, and associated terms in personal healthcare.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery.The British journal of surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Feasibility of the Aktivplan Digital Health Intervention for Supporting Regular Physical Activity Following Phase II Rehabilitation: Randomized Controlled Pilot Feasibility Study (ACTIVE-CaRe Pilot).JMIR formative research · 2026Trial
- The Dutch Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Decision Aid in Clinical Practice: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Trial
- Impact of health literacy and primary language on the decision to pursue trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Trial
- Implementation of Coach McLungsBMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Trial
- Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- Effect of Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations vs Usual Care on Patient Interest and Use of Recommendations: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- Shared decision making and patient-centeredness for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care-results of the cluster-randomised controlled DEBATE trial.BMC family practice · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Involving patient partners as appraisers of shared decision making: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Encounter tool for Shared Decision Making about Adjuvant Treatment of Lung Cancer: Randomized Clinical Trial.Research square · 2026Article
- Ovarian function suppression decision-making and uptake in premenopausal women with breast cancer: a mixed methods analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Study Protocol of a Korean Patient-Centered Shared Decision-Making Model for Management of Severe Knee Osteoarthritis: A Multicenter Pragmatic Clinical Trial (K-SDM-KOA).Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Structured Medication Review and Shared Decision-Making in Patients with Mild Intellectual Disabilities Who Use Psychotropic Medication.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Enhancing Shared Decision-Making in Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: A Multi-System Implementation and Evaluation.Obesity science & practice · 2025Article
- Article
- Shared decision-making for kidney replacement therapy: a comprehensive review and a proposed model.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2025Review
- Article
22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) is a 9-item measure of the decisional process in medical encounters from both patients' and physicians' perspectives. It has good acceptance, feasibility, and reliability. This systematic review aimed to 1) evaluate the use of the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc in intervention studies on shared decision making (SDM) in clinical settings, 2) describe how the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc performed regarding sensitivity to change, and 3) assess the methodological quality of studies and study protocols that use the measure.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies published between 2010 and October 2015 that evaluated interventions to facilitate SDM. The search strategy comprised three databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Medline), reference tracking, citation tracking, and personal knowledge. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts as well as full texts of potentially relevant records. We extracted the data using a pilot tested sheet, and we assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment Tools from the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH).
resultsFive completed studies and six study protocols fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The measure was used in a variety of health care settings, mainly in Europe, to evaluate several types of interventions. The reported mean sum scores ranged from 42 to 75 on a scale from 0 to 100. In four studies no significant change was detected in the mean-differences between main groups. In the fifth study the difference was small. Quality assessment revealed a high risk of bias in four of the five completed studies, while the study protocols received moderate quality ratings.
conclusionsWe found a wide range of areas in which the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc were applied. In the future this review may help researchers decide whether the measure fits their purposes. Furthermore, the review revealed risk of bias in previous trials that used the measure, and may help future trials decrease this risk. More research on the measure's sensitivity to change is strongly suggested.
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.