Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30540833›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Can patients be trained to expect shared decision making in clinical consultations? Feasibility study of a public library program to raise patient awareness.

Evehouenou Lionel Adisso, Valérie Borde, Marie-Ève Saint-Hilaire, Hubert Robitaille, Patrick Archambault, Johanne Blais, Cynthia Cameron, Michel Cauchon, Richard Fleet, Jean-Simon Létourneau and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Shared Decision-Making for a Dialysis Modality.Kidney international reports · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

16 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Evehouenou Lionel AdissoTier 1 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).
Valérie BordeFreelance science communication specialist, Quebec City (QC, Canada).
Marie-Ève Saint-HilaireBibliothèque de Québec (Quebec City network of public libraries), Quebec City (QC, Canada).
Hubert RobitailleTier 1 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).ORCID 0000-0001-5817-5602
Patrick ArchambaultDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).
Johanne BlaisDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).
Cynthia CameronDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).
Michel CauchonDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).
Richard FleetDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).
Jean-Simon LétourneauDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).
Michel LabrecqueCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital St-François D'Assise, Quebec city (QC, Canada).
Julien QuintyDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).
Isabelle SamsonDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).
Alexandrine BoucherTier 1 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).ORCID 0000-0001-7285-4193
Hervé Tchala Vignon ZomahounTier 1 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).
France LégaréTier 1 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Université Laval, Quebec City (QC, Canada).ORCID 0000-0002-2296-6696
Université Laval · CACentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean · CABibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec · CACanadian Institutes of Health Research · CAHôpital Saint-François d'Assise · CAQuebec Rehabilitation Research Network · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 143965
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionShared decision making (SDM) is a process whereby decisions are made together by patients and/or families and clinicians. Nevertheless, few patients are aware of its proven benefits. This study investigated the feasibility, acceptability and impact of an intervention to raise public awareness of SDM in public libraries. MATERIALS AND

methodsA 1.5 hour interactive workshop to be presented in public libraries was co-designed with Quebec City public library network officials, a science communication specialist and physicians. A clinical topic of maximum reach was chosen: antibiotic overuse in treatment of acute respiratory tract infections. The workshop content was designed and a format, whereby a physician presents the information and the science communication specialist invites questions and participation, was devised. The event was advertised to the general public. An evaluation form was used to collect data on participants' sociodemographics, feasibility and acceptability components and assess a potential impact of the intervention. Facilitators held a post-workshop focus group to qualitatively assess feasibility, acceptability and impact.

resultsAll 10 planned workshops were held. Out of 106 eligible public participants, 89 were included in the analysis. Most participants were women (77.6%), retired (46.1%) and over 45 (59.5%). Over 90% of participants considered the workshop content to be relevant, accessible, and clear. They reported substantial average knowledge gain about antibiotics (2.4, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 2.0-2.8; P < .001) and about SDM (4.0, 95% CI: 3.4-4.5; P < .001). Self-reported knowledge gain about SDM was significantly higher than about antibiotics (4.0 versus 2.4; P < .001). Knowledge gain did not vary by sociodemographic characteristics. The focus group confirmed feasibility and suggested improvements.

conclusionsA public library intervention is feasible and effective way to increase public awareness of SDM and could be a new approach to implementing SDM by preparing potential patients to ask for it in the consulting room.

Indexed as

AwarenessDecision MakingLibrariesPatient ParticipationReferral and ConsultationAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30540833
PMCPMC6291239
OpenAlexW2905009623

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.