ArticleBMJ open2019
Semistructured interviews regarding patients' perceptions of Choosing Wisely and shared decision-making: an Australian study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should healthcare professionals include aspects of environmental sustainability in clinical decision-making? A systematic review of reasons.BMC medical ethics · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions to reduce low-value imaging - a systematic review of interventions and outcomes.BMC health services research · 2021Pooled it
- Randomized Trial of the Choosing Wisely Consumer Questions and a Shared Decision-Making Video Intervention on Decision-Making Outcomes.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023Trial
- Why Most Australians Consider It Valuable to Find Harmless Abnormalities with Diagnostic Tests: A Mixed-Methods Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- How Do Australians Manage Diagnostic Testing Risks? Focus Groups Linked to a Model of Behaviour Change.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- The impact of COVID-19 on Australian clinicians' decision making in line with the principles of Choosing Wisely.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Perceptions and Usability of PREVENTION: A Breast Cancer Risk Assessment e-Platform.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Clinician acceptability of an antibiotic prescribing knowledge support system for primary care: a mixed-method evaluation of features and context.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Patient and family involvement in Choosing Wisely initiatives: a mixed methods study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Development of a Patient-Oriented Intervention to Support Patient-Provider Conversations about Unnecessary Lower Back Pain Imaging.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- COVID-19 and Dispositions of the Chilean Healthcare System: Sociomedical Networks in Care Decisions of Chronic Illnesses.Frontiers in sociology · 2021Article
- 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to examine how patients perceive shared decision-making regarding CT scan referral and use of the five Choosing Wisely questions with their general practitioner (GP).
designThis is a qualitative exploratory study using semistructured interviews.
settingThis study was conducted in a large metropolitan public healthcare organisation in urban Australia.
participantsFollowing purposive sampling, 20 patients and 2 carers participated. Patient participants aged 18 years or older were eligible if they were attending the healthcare organisation for a CT scan and referred by their GP. Carers/family were eligible to participate when they were in the role of an unpaid carer and were aged 18 years or older. Participants were required to speak English sufficiently to provide informed consent. Participants with cognitive impairment were excluded.
findingsEighteen interviews were conducted with the patient only. Two interviews were conducted with the patient and the patient's carer. Fourteen participants were female. Five themes resulted from the thematic analysis: (1) needing to know, (2) questioning doctors is not necessary, (3) discussing scans is not required, (4) uncertainty about questioning and (5) valuing the Choosing Wisely questions. Participants reported that they presented to their GP with a health problem that they needed to understand and address. Participants accepted their GPs decision to prescribe a CT scan to identify the nature of their problem. They reported ambivalence about engaging in shared decision-making with their doctor, although many participants reported valuing the Choosing Wisely questions.
conclusionsShared decision-making is an important principle underpinning Choosing Wisely. Practice implementation requires understanding patients' motivations to engage in shared decision-making with a focus on attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and emotions. Systems-level support and education for healthcare practitioners in effective communication is important. However, this needs to emphasise communication with patients who have varying degrees of motivation to engage in shared decision-making and Choosing Wisely.
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.