Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30564717›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2018

Shared decision-making (SHARE-D) for healthy behaviour change: a feasibility study in general practice.

Margaret E Cupples, Judith A Cole, Nigel D Hart, Neil Heron, Michelle C McKinley, Mark A Tully

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Patient Involvement in Shared Decision-Making: Do Patients Rate Physicians and Nurses Differently?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Margaret E CupplesProfessor, Department of General Practice, Queen's University Belfast, Dunluce Health Centre, Belfast, UK.
Judith A ColeResearch Fellow, Department of General Practice, Queen's University Belfast, Dunluce Health Centre, Belfast, UK.
Nigel D HartSenior Lecturer, Centre for Medical Education, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Neil HeronResearch Fellow, Department of General Practice, Queen's University Belfast, Dunluce Health Centre, Belfast, UK.
Michelle C McKinleyReader, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Mark A TullySenior Lecturer, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cardiovascular diseasedietgeneral practicephysical activity

Identifiers

PMID30564717
PMCPMC6184102

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.