Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30916446›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2019

"What would you recommend doctor?"-Discourse analysis of a moment of dissonance when sharing decisions in clinical consultations.

Rebecca Sherlock, Fiona Wood, Natalie Joseph-Williams, Denitza Williams, Joanna Hyam, Helen Sweetland, Helen McGarrigle, Adrian Edwards

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Exploring Communication Dynamics Between Patients and Healthcare Providers in Oncology: A Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Shared decision-making in standardized cancer patient pathways in Norway-Narratives of patient experiences.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. "What would you recommend doctor?"-Discourse analysis of a moment of dissonance when sharing decisions in clinical consultations.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca SherlockDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Fiona WoodDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7397-4074
Natalie Joseph-WilliamsDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8944-2969
Denitza WilliamsDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2874-9270
Joanna HyamDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Helen SweetlandCardiff and the Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, UK.
Helen McGarrigleCardiff and the Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, UK.
Adrian EdwardsDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6228-4446
Cardiff University · GBCardiff and Vale University Health Board · GB

Funding

Health Foundation 7212
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProven benefits of Shared Decision Making (SDM) include improved patient knowledge, involvement and confidence in making decisions. Although widely advocated in policy, SDM is still not widely implemented in practice. A common patient-reported barrier is feeling that "doctor knows best"; thus, patients often defer decisions to the clinician.

objectiveTo examine the nature of the discourse when patients ask clinicians for a treatment recommendation during consultations when treatment decisions are being shared and to examine clinicians' strategies used in response. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsTheme-orientated discourse analysis was performed on eight audio-recordings of breast cancer diagnostic consultations in which patients or their partners attempted to defer treatment decisions to the clinician. Clinicians were trained in SDM.

resultsTension was evident in a number of consultations when treatment recommendations were requested. Clinicians responded to recommendation requests by explaining why the decision was being shared (personal nature of the decision, individual preferences and equivalent survival outcomes of treatment options). There was only one instance where a clinician gave a treatment recommendation. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsStrategies for clinicians to facilitate SDM when patients seem to defer decisional responsibility include being clear about why the decision is being shared, acknowledging that this is difficult and making patients feel supported. When patients seek guidance, clinicians can provide a recommendation if grounded in an understanding of the patient's values.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultBreast NeoplasmsCognitive DissonanceFemaleHumansUnited Kingdombreast cancercommunicationdiscourse analysispatient participationqualitative researchshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID30916446
PMCPMC6543150
OpenAlexW2921648758

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.