Trial reportBMC health services research2018
Comparison of audio vs. audio + video for the rating of shared decision making in oncology using the observer OPTION
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Video-Enhanced Care Management for Medically Complex Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2021Trial
- MedVidDeID: Protecting privacy in clinical encounter video recordings.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2025Article
- Shared Decision-Making in Physical Therapist Care for People With Shoulder Problems: An Observer-Based Analysis of Audio-Recorded Consultations.Physical therapy · 2025Article
- Talking About Barriers to Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs: Content Analysis of Audio-Recorded Routine Clinical Visits of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Parents' Interactive Problem-Solving Behavior and Emotion Studied With Audio Compared With Video Source.Research and theory for nursing practice · 2022Article
- Characterizing patient-oncologist communication in genomic tumor testing: The 21-gene recurrence score as an exemplar.Patient education and counseling · 2021Article
- Making the most of video recorded clinical encounters: Optimizing impact and productivity through interdisciplinary teamwork.Patient education and counseling · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHow non-verbal data may influence observer-administered ratings of shared decision making is unknown. Our objective for this exploratory analysis was to determine the effect of mode of data collection (audio+video vs. audio only) on the scoring of the OPTION
methodsWe analyzed recordings of 15 encounters between cancer patients and clinicians in which a clinical decision was made. Audio+video or audio only recordings of the encounters were randomly assigned to four trained raters, who reviewed them independently. We compared the adjusted mean scores of audio+video and audio only.
resultsForty-one unique decisions were identified within the 15 encounters. The mean OPTION
conclusionA rigorous and well established measure of shared decision making performs differently when the data source is audio only. Data source may influence rating of observer administered measures of shared decision making. This potential bias needs to be confirmed as video recording to examine communication behaviors becomes more common.
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.