ArticleBMJ open2018
US-based cross-sectional survey of clinicians' knowledge and attitudes about shared decision-making across healthcare professions and specialties.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- Knowledge, attitude, and behavior regarding the implementation of shared decision-making among advanced practice nurses in Taiwan.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Knowledge and Attitude Toward Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Among Senior Students and Residents of Dental College at Riyadh City: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Navigating shared decision-making in lung cancer screening: Insights into barriers, training, and referral propensity among clinicians.Patient education and counseling · 2025Article
- The nursing shared decision making attitude scale: A translation and psychometric evaluation study.PEC innovation · 2024Article
- Exploring Perceptions and Practices of Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Education in Palliative Care Settings.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
- Shared decision-making with athletes: a survey study of healthcare professionals' perspectives.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024Article
- Exploring dental students' attitudes toward patient-centered management of dental fear.Journal of dental education · 2024Article
- Alignment of patient-centredness definitions with real-life patient and clinician experiences: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Awareness of Doctors' Shared Decision-Making in Life-Sustaining Care Decisions.Journal of hospice and palliative care · 2021Article
- Article
- Translation and psychometric evaluation of the German version of the IcanSDM measure - a cross-sectional study among healthcare professionals.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Increasing risk-concordant cardiovascular care in diverse health systems: a mixed methods pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized implementation trial of shared decision making (SDM4IP).Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- Do collaboRATE Scores Reflect Differences in Perceived Shared Decision-Making Across Diverse Patient Populations? Evidence From a Large-Scale Patient Experience Survey in the United States.Journal of patient experience · 2020Article
- Exploring healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making in rheumatology.RMD open · 2020Article
- Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Patterns Among Primary and Pulmonary Care Clinicians.Nursing researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, we aim to compare shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge and attitudes between US-based physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians across surgical and family medicine specialties.
settingWe administered a cross-sectional, web-based survey between 20 September 2017 and 1 November 2017.
participants272 US-based NPs, PA and physicians completed the survey. 250 physicians were sent a generic email invitation to participate, of whom 100 completed the survey. 3300 NPs and PAs were invited, among whom 172 completed the survey. Individuals who met the following exclusion criteria were excluded from participation: (1) lack of English proficiency; (2) area of practice other than family medicine or surgery; (3) licensure other than physician, PA or NP; (4) practicing in a country other than the US.
resultsWe found few substantial differences in SDM knowledge and attitudes across clinician types, revealing positive attitudes across the sample paired with low to moderate knowledge. Family medicine professionals (PAs) were most knowledgeable on several items. Very few respondents (3%; 95% CI 1.5% to 6.2%) favoured a paternalistic approach to decision-making.
conclusionsRecent policy-level promotion of SDM may have influenced positive clinician attitudes towards SDM. Positive attitudes despite limited knowledge warrant SDM training across occupations and specialties, while encouraging all clinicians to promote SDM. Given positive attitudes and similar knowledge across clinician types, we recommend that SDM is not confined to the patient-physician dyad but instead advocated among other health professionals.
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.