ArticleBJGP open2018
Shared decision-making (SHARE-D) for healthy behaviour change: a feasibility study in general practice.
Article in BJGP open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Preferences in Anticoagulation Treatment: A Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Review
- Exploring the Implementation of Shared Decision-Making Involving Health Coaches for Diabetes and Hypertension Self-Management: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- [The role of nurses in shared decision-making about caring for older adults with chronic disease: A qualitative descriptive study].Journal of Korean gerontological nursing · 2023Article
- Tools to guide clinical discussions on physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and/or sleep for health promotion between primary care providers and adults accessing care: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Patient Involvement in Shared Decision-Making: Do Patients Rate Physicians and Nurses Differently?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- How alcohol and/or tobacco use and raised glycemia are associated with oral hygiene practices among Burkinabè adults: Evidence from the first national non-communicable disease risk factors survey.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Study of patients' attitude to automatic interpretation of laboratory test results and its influence on follow-up rate.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Refining a primary care shared decision-making aid for lifestyle change: a mixed-methods study.BJGP open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective interventions are needed to support health behaviour change for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Decision tools encourage behaviour change but their effectiveness when used in shared decision-making with health professionals (HPs) is unknown.
aimTo test the feasibility of using a novel, paper-based tool for shared decision-making in initiating behaviour change. DESIGN &
settingA feasibility study in five general practices in Northern Ireland.
methodAdults with, or at high risk of, CVD were invited to discuss their diet and physical activity (PA) with an HP. Using a paper-based decision aid in shared decision-making about behaviour change, their capabilities, opportunities, and motivation were considered. Diet and PA were assessed at baseline, 1, and 3 months using the Dietary Instrument for Nutritional Education (DINE) and the Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire (RPAQ); accelerometers measured PA at baseline and 3 months. Semi-structured interviews, analysed thematically, explored participants' and HPs' views of the process.
resultsThe positive response rate to study invitation was 28% (45/162); 23 were recruited (aged 43-74 years; 50% male; <40% met diet or PA recommendations); and 87% (20/23) completed the study. All interviewees valued the tool's structure, succinct content, and facilitation of discussion. HPs' sharing of relevant personal experience encouraged behaviour change; social responsibilities, health conditions, and beliefs restricted change. HPs' workloads prohibited the tool's routine use.
conclusionRecruitment and completion rates suggest that using a novel, paper-based tool in shared decision-making for behaviour change is feasible. HPs' workloads constrain its use in practice, but qualitative findings indicate its potential value. Cross-sector collaborative exploration of sustainable models to promote behaviour change is needed.
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.