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.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Article
- A field-test of Not Deciding Alone to support Inuit with health decision making: co-production of a mixed methods study guided by aajiiqatigiingniq.International journal of circumpolar health · 2025Article
- Spontaneous Scaling of a Primary Care Innovation in Real-Life Conditions: Protocol for a Case Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Knowledge exchange sessions on primary health care research findings in public libraries: A qualitative study with citizens in Quebec.PloS one · 2023Article
- Scaling Up Citizen Workshops in Public Libraries to Disseminate and Discuss Primary Care Research Results: Quasi-Experimental Study.JMIR aging · 2022Article
- Shared Decision-Making for a Dialysis Modality.Kidney international reports · 2022Review
- Shared Decision-Making: A Cross-Sectional Study Assessing Patients Awareness and Preferences in Saudi Arabia.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Towards a taxonomy of behavior change techniques for promoting shared decision making.Implementation science : IS · 2020Article
- Autonomy, power dynamics and antibiotic use in primary healthcare: A qualitative study.PloS one · 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
16 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.