ArticlePatient education and counseling2018
An expanded framework to define and measure shared decision-making in dialogue: A 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approach.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does clinical documentation reflect how parents and clinicians share decisions about surgery?BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Does Clinical Documentation Reflect How Parents and Clinicians Share Decisions About Surgery?Research square · 2025Article
- Shared Decision-Making Communication and Prognostic Misunderstanding in the ICU.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Understanding COVID-19 Impacts on the Health Workforce: AI-Assisted Open-Source Media Content Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Sharing a medical decision.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Article
- Surgeon Information-Sharing, Parent Verbal Engagement, and Parent Knowledge of Pediatric Adenotonsillectomy.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2024Article
- Allyship to Advance Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Otolaryngology: What We Can All Do.Current otorhinolaryngology reports · 2023Article
- Decision Making for Infants With Neurologic Conditions.Journal of child neurology · 2022Article
- How doctors actually (do not) involve families in decisions to continue or discontinue life-sustaining treatment in neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care: A qualitative study.Palliative medicine · 2021Article
- Caregiver perceptions and attitudes associated with oral immunotherapy on social media.Allergy and asthma proceedings · 2021Article
- Communication during the initial visit to a CPAP clinic Practitioners' experiences of facilitators and barriers when talking to patients with obstructive sleep apnea.Journal of sleep research · 2021Article
- What Exactly Is Shared Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Reconciling the theory and reality of shared decision-making: A "matching" approach to practitioner leadership.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Review
- Surgeon use of medical jargon with parents in the outpatient setting.Patient education and counseling · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Parental Perspectives and Concerns About Pediatric Tonsillectomy in Social Media.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2019Article
- Associations of Concordant and Shared Lung Cancer Screening Decision Making with Decisional Conflict: A Multi-Institution Cross-Sectional Analysis.MDM policy & practiceArticle
- Is Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge Associated with Patient-Centered Outcomes? A Multi-institutional Cohort Study.MDM policy & practiceArticle
- Theoretical model and measurement of shared decision making in web-based pharmaceutical care consultation.Digital healthArticle
- Improving Care Quality Through Documented Shared Decisions.Quality management in health careArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to develop a comprehensive, descriptive framework to measure shared decision making (SDM) in clinical encounters.
methodsWe combined a top-down (theoretical) approach with a bottom-up approach based on audio-recorded dialogue to identify all communication processes related to decision making. We coded 55 pediatric otolaryngology visits using the framework and report interrater reliability.
resultsWe identified 14 clinician behaviors and 5 patient behaviors that have not been previously described, and developed a new SDM framework that is descriptive (what does happen) rather than normative (what should happen). Through the bottom-up approach we identified three broad domains not present in other SDM frameworks: socioemotional support, understandability of clinician dialogue, and recommendation-giving. We also specify the ways in which decision-making roles are assumed implicitly rather than discussed explicitly. Interrater reliability was >75% for 92% of the coded behaviors. CONCLUSION/PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This SDM framework allows for a more expansive understanding and analysis of how decision making takes place in clinical encounters, including new domains and behaviors not present in existing measures. We hope that this new framework will bring attention to a broader conception of SDM and allow researchers to further explore the new domains and behaviors identified.
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.