Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29456779›Full record

ReviewThe open nursing journal2018

Shared Decision-Making for Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review.

Marie Truglio-Londrigan, Jason T Slyer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The open nursing journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Evaluation of an Interactive, Educational Website Developed for Adolescents to Learn About Pediatric Clinical Trials: DigiKnowIt News.Journal of pediatric health care : official publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Nursing management decisions in fever: a mixed-methods approach to understanding.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

2 authors.

Marie Truglio-LondriganPace University, College of Health Professions, Lienhard School of Nursing 861 Bedford Road Pleasantville, NY 10570, USA.
Jason T SlyerClinical Assistant Professor, Pace University, College of Health Professions, Lienhard School of Nursing 163 William Street, 5 Floor New York, NY 10036, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision-making has received national and international interest by providers, educators, researchers, and policy makers. The literature on shared decision-making is extensive, dealing with the individual components of shared decision-making rather than a comprehensive process. This view of shared decision-making leaves healthcare providers to wonder how to integrate shared decision-making into practice.

objectiveTo understand shared decision-making as a comprehensive process from the perspective of the patient and provider in all healthcare settings.

methodsAn integrative review was conducted applying a systematic approach involving a literature search, data evaluation, and data analysis. The search included articles from PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO from 1970 through 2016. Articles included quantitative experimental and non-experimental designs, qualitative, and theoretical articles about shared decision-making between all healthcare providers and patients in all healthcare settings.

resultsFifty-two papers were included in this integrative review. Three categories emerged from the synthesis: (a) communication/ relationship building; (b) working towards a shared decision; and (c) action for shared decision-making. Each major theme contained sub-themes represented in the proposed visual representation for shared decision-making.

conclusionA comprehensive understanding of shared decision-making between the nurse and the patient was identified. A visual representation offers a guide that depicts shared decision-making as a process taking place during a healthcare encounter with implications for the continuation of shared decisions over time offering patients an opportunity to return to the nurse for reconsiderations of past shared decisions.

Indexed as

CommunicationIntegrative reviewNurse-patient relationshipPractice modelReflectionShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID29456779
PMCPMC5806202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.