ArticleSystematic reviews2017
Development of a program theory for shared decision-making: a realist review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a community-prioritized research agenda on primary care strategies for minimizing the health impacts of heat and poor air quality events: protocol.Frontiers in climate · 2025Article
- Understanding the impact of a residential housing program for people living with HIV/AIDS: results from a realist evaluation.BMJ open · 2024Article
- A rapid realist review of patient engagement in patient-oriented research and health care system impacts: part one.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Review
- Article
- Trust and world view in shared decision making with indigenous patients: A realist synthesis.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2020Article
- Development of a program theory for shared decision-making: a realist synthesis.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Shared decision making: Does a physician's decision-making style affect patient participation in treatment choices for primary immunodeficiency?Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2019Article
- Article
- Understanding Decision Making about Breast Cancer Prevention in Action: The Intersection of Perceived Risk, Perceived Control, and Social Context: NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019Article
- Acceptability and Feasibility of a Shared Decision-Making Model in Work Rehabilitation: A Mixed-Methods Study of Stakeholders' Perspectives.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2019Article
- Adapting health interventions for local fit when scaling-up: a realist review protocol.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe practicality of applying evidence to healthcare systems with the aim of implementing change is an ongoing challenge for practitioners, policy makers, and academics. Shared decision- making (SDM), a method of medical decision-making that allows a balanced relationship between patients, physicians, and other key players in the medical decision process, is purported to improve patient and system outcomes. Despite the oft-mentioned benefits, there are gaps in the current literature between theory and implementation that would benefit from a realist approach given the value of this methodology to analyze complex interventions. In this protocol, we outline a study that will explore: "In which situations, how, why, and for whom does SDM between patients and health care providers contribute to improved decision making?"
methodsA seven step iterative process will be described including preliminary theory development, establishment of a search strategy, selection and appraisal of literature, data extraction, analysis and synthesis of extracted results from literature, and formation of a revised program theory with the input of patients, physicians, nurse navigators, and policy makers from a stakeholder session. DISCUSSION: The goal of the realist review will be to identify and refine a program theory for SDM through the identification of mechanisms which shape the characteristics of when, how, and why SDM will, and will not, work. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017062609.
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.