Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30025154›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2018

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.

France Légaré, Rhéda Adekpedjou, Dawn Stacey, Stéphane Turcotte, Jennifer Kryworuchko, Ian D Graham, Anne Lyddiatt, Mary C Politi, Richard Thomson, Glyn Elwyn and 1 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 350 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
350citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
99.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT04162288 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

RCT Protocol for Evaluating an Online Training Program on Shared Decision-making About Screening for Down Syndrome

TypeinterventionalSponsorCHU de Quebec-Universite LavalRan2019 to 2020Enrolled36ConditionsShared Decision MakingArmsOnline Training - Shared Decision Making in Prenatal Screening, Online Training - Online Training on Prenatal Screening
NCT05424809 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Feasibility and Preliminary Effectiveness of a Shared Decision-making Process in a Tertiary University Hospital: Protocol of a Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Vall d'HebronRan2022 to 2022Enrolled50ConditionsClinical Decision Making, Patient-Centered Care, Obesity, Chronic Kidney DiseasesArmsShared decision-making model
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

350 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 707 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Communication Processes Related to Decision-Making in Medication Management Between Healthcare Providers, Older People and Their Carers: A Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  13. Shared decision-making experiences in child long-term ventilation: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  14. Interventions for Indigenous Peoples making health decisions: a systematic review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Pooled it
  15. Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

290 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

France LégaréCentre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne de l'Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Université Laval, 2525, Chemin de la Canardière, Quebec, Québec, Canada, G1J 0A4.
Rhéda Adekpedjou
Dawn Stacey
Stéphane Turcotte
Jennifer Kryworuchko
Ian D Graham
Anne Lyddiatt
Mary C Politi
Richard Thomson
Glyn Elwyn
Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
Université Laval · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CACardiff University · GBHôpital Saint-François d'Assise · CANewcastle University · GBPhilipps University of Marburg · DEUniversity of British Columbia · CAWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN

resultsWe included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs. AUTHORS'

conclusionsIt is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesPatient ParticipationHealth PersonnelHumansPatient Education as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30025154
PMCPMC6513543
OpenAlexW2884603128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.