ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2019
Does Shared Decision Making Actually Occur in the Emergency Department? Looking at It from the Patients' Perspective.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of patient decision aids used pre-consult or in-consult on patient-clinician communication - secondary analysis of a systematic review with meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Shared decision-making for pediatric acute otitis media in the United States: a randomized emergency department trial.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Trial
- A Team Approach to Patient-Centered Communication in the Emergency Department.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
- Marginal Dispositions and Shared Decision-Making Among Older Adults in the ED: A Prospective Cohort Study.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
- Shared Decision-Making on Life-Sustaining Treatment: A Survey of Current Barriers in Practice Among Clinicians Across China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Impact of personalized risk scores on shared decision making in left ventricular assist device implantation: Findings from a qualitative study.Patient education and counseling · 2025Article
- Challenges in the Literature Around Context-Sensitive Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Emergency Medicine: A Scoping Review.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2025Review
- Exploring differences in patient participation in simulated emergency cases in co-located and distributed rural emergency teams - an observational study with a randomized cross-over design.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Observational
- Through the Eyes of Patients: The Effect of Training General Practitioners and Nurses on Perceived Shared Decision-Making Support.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Key elements and checklist of shared decision-making conversation on life-sustaining treatment in emergency: a multispecialty study from China.World journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Factors Influencing Participation in Shared Decision-Making Among Patients with Glaucoma in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Patient Involvement in Decisions regarding Emergency Department Discharge: A Multimethod Study.Emergency medicine international · 2023Article
- Shared decision-making in advance care planning among hospitalized older COVID-19 patients: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2022Article
- 'I knew I'd be taken care of': Exploring patient experiences in the Emergency Department.Journal of advanced nursing · 2022Article
- Patients' and physicians' gender and perspective on shared decision-making: A cross-sectional study from Dubai.PloS one · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to assess the frequency, content, and quality of shared decision making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED), from patients' perspectives.
methodsUtilizing a cross-sectional, multisite approach, we administered an instrument, consisting of two validated SDM assessment tools-the CollaboRATE and the SDM-Q-9-and one newly developed tool to a sample of ED patients. Our primary outcome was the occurrence of SDM in the clinical encounter, as defined by participants giving "top-box" scores on the CollaboRATE measure, and the ability of patients to identify the topic of their SDM conversation. Secondary outcomes included the content of the SDM conversations, as judged by patients, and whether patients were able to complete each of the two validated scales included in the instrument.
resultsAfter exclusions, 285 participants from two sites completed the composite instrument. Just under half identified as female (47%) or as white (47%). Roughly half gave top-box scores (i.e., indicating optimal SDM) on the CollaboRATE scale (49%). Less than half of the participants were able to indicate a decision they were involved in (44%), although those who did gave high scores for such conversations (73/100 via the SDM-Q-9 tool). The most frequently identified decisions discussed were admission versus discharge (19%), medication options (17%), and options for follow-up care (15%).
conclusionsFewer than half of ED patients surveyed reported they were involved in SDM. The most common decision for which SDM was used was around ED disposition (admission vs. discharge). When SDM was employed, patients generally rated the discussion highly.
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.