Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30948650›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

Shared decision-making experienced by Canadians facing health care decisions: a Web-based survey.

Julie Haesebaert, Rhéda Adekpedjou, Jordie Croteau, Hubert Robitaille, France Légaré

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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 · 2020
    Article
  19. To share or not to share: When is shared decision making the best option?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020
    Article
  20. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020
    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

5 authors.

Julie HaesebaertCentre de recherche sur les soins et services de première ligne de l'Université Laval, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, and Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Que.
Rhéda AdekpedjouCentre de recherche sur les soins et services de première ligne de l'Université Laval, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, and Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Que.
Jordie CroteauCentre de recherche sur les soins et services de première ligne de l'Université Laval, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, and Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Que.
Hubert RobitailleCentre de recherche sur les soins et services de première ligne de l'Université Laval, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, and Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Que.
France LégaréCentre de recherche sur les soins et services de première ligne de l'Université Laval, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, and Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Que. France.Legare@mfa.ulaval.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID30948650
PMCPMC6450794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.