SynthesisPloS one2018
The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05261412 (Varicose Vein Education and Informed coNsent), which is not on this map. Cited by 98 papers, 10 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.
Varicose Vein Education and Informed coNsent (VVEIN) Study: A Randomised Feasibility Study
Who cites it
98 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of observational coding systems to assess patient-healthcare professional interactions.Patient education and counseling · 2025Pooled it
- Measurement of person-centred consultation skills among healthcare practitioners: a systematic review of reviews of validation studies.BMC medical education · 2023Pooled it
- Are We Improving? Update and Critical Appraisal of the Reporting of Decision Process and Quality Measures in Trials Evaluating Patient Decision Aids.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- 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
- Pooled it
- Interventions for involving older patients with multi-morbidity in decision-making during primary care consultations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures.Health services research · 2019Pooled it
- Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- The VALUE of AI-Guided Communication: Enhancing Shared Decision-Making in Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Consultations Through a Metacognitive Framework.Obesity surgery · 2026Trial
- Assessment of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis shared decision-making intervention (DASH-TOP) using the decisional conflict scale: a mixed-method study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Trial
- HbA1c as a shared treatment goal in type 2 diabetes? A secondary analysis of the DEBATE trial.BMC primary care · 2023Trial
- Improving treatment decision-making in bipolar II disorder: a phase II randomised controlled trial of an online patient decision-aid.BMC psychiatry · 2020Trial
- Learning person-centred consultation skills in clinical medicine: A randomised controlled case study.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2020Trial
- Informed shared decision-making programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2018 · on this mapTrial
- Article
- AI-Simulated Patients for Training Shared Decision-Making: Feasibility Study in Medical Education.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Shared Decision-Making Supported by Outcome Information During Discharge Planning of Patients Hospitalized With Stroke.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2026Article
- Protocol for DESCIDE-RD: Determining Effectiveness of Shared Decision Making in Drug Therapy Selection for Rheumatic Diseases.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
38 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies.
methodsIn a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397.
resultsWe included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated.
conclusionsDue to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.
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.