ArticleCMAJ open
Shared decision-making experienced by Canadians facing health care decisions: a Web-based survey.
Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Shared Decision-Making During Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Therapy Selection: A Patient and Clinician Survey.Pulmonary circulation · 2026Article
- My Heart and CKD: Pathway to Implementing a Decision Aid for Patients With CKD and Coronary Artery Disease.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2026Article
- Human-Centred Design & Development of aCJC open · 2025Article
- Concordance of symptoms perceived by patients receiving haemodialysis and those reported by nurses and nephrologists: a cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study using the REIN registry.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Article
- Article
- A Quantitative Study Exploring and Comparing Key Factors in Medication Management in the Irish Healthcare Setting.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Engagement of Older Adults Receiving Home Care Services and Their Caregivers in Health Decisions in Partnership With Clinical Teams: Protocol for a Multimethod Study to Prioritize and Culturally Adapt Decision Aids for Home Care.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Decisions and Decisional Needs of Canadians From all Provinces and Territories During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Population-Based Cross-sectional Surveys.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Alignment of patient-centredness definitions with real-life patient and clinician experiences: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Canadian Older Adults' Intention to Use an Electronic Decision Aid for Housing Decisions: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey.JMIR aging · 2023Article
- Article
- Home care providers' perceptions of shared decision-making with older clients (and their caregivers): A cross-sectional study.Nursing & health sciences · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Technology to Improve Autonomy and Inform Housing Decisions for Older Adults With Memory Problems Who Live at Home in Canada, Sweden, and the Netherlands: Protocol for a Multipronged Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Parent/Carer-Reported Experience of Shared Decision Making at Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: A Multilevel Modelling Approach.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- What older adults and their caregivers need for making better health-related decisions at home: a participatory mixed methods protocol.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Group medical consultation for osteoporosis: a prospective pilot study of patient experience in Canadian tertiary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
- To share or not to share: When is shared decision making the best option?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite health policy that promotes shared decision-making, it is not yet the norm in clinical practice. We aimed to assess how much shared decision-making Canadians experienced in health-related decisions in 2017.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey in January 2018 with a Web-based panel of Canadians representing all 10 provinces. We assessed their involvement in health-related decisions made with a health care professional over the previous year by asking about 1) discussion of choice of treatment or care plan, 2) presentation of advantages and disadvantages, 3) exploration of ideas and preferences, 4) discussion of preferred option and 5) match between preferred and actual level of participation. We computed an average shared decision-making score (range 1 [never] to 5 [always]). We presented characteristics of participants and responses using descriptive statistics and explored variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, geographical areas and care settings (home care or not) using multivariate weighted regressions.
resultsOf the 1591 participants surveyed, 1010 (63.5%) reported receiving health care in the previous 12 months. The mean of the average shared decision-making score was 2.25/5 (standard deviation [SD] 1.16). After weighting, 42.8% of respondents reported that their health care professional often or always mentioned that they had a choice of treatment or care plan, 45.4% reported that advantages and disadvantages were often or always presented, 38.8% reported that they were often or always asked for their ideas or preferences, 40.2% reported that they were often or always asked about their preferred option, and 54.1% stated that their level of participation in decision-making often or always matched their preferred level of participation. Increasing age, rural setting, living in the province of Quebec and not being white significantly decreased the level of shared decision-making experienced. Older respondents (age ≥ 65 yr) receiving home care reported the least shared decision-making (mean score 1.7 [SD 0.5]).
interpretationCanadians in all 10 provinces experienced a low degree of shared decision-making in 2017, with variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, care settings and geographical areas. Further efforts to foster implementation of shared decision-making are needed and should take these variations into account.
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.