Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31533712›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Integrating patient perspectives in medical decision-making: a qualitative interview study examining potentials within the rare disease information exchange process in practice.

Ana Babac, Verena von Friedrichs, Svenja Litzkendorf, Jan Zeidler, Kathrin Damm, J-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 'Advocacy groups are the connectors': Experiences and contributions of rare disease patient organization leaders in advanced neurotherapeutics.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Is There a Baby in the Lung? A Case of Placental Transmogrification of the Lung.Journal of investigative medicine high impact case reports
    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

6 authors.

Ana BabacCenter of Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Leibniz Universität Hanover, Hanover, Germany. ab@cherh.de.ORCID 0000-0002-0210-5370
Verena von FriedrichsCenter of Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Leibniz Universität Hanover, Hanover, Germany.
Svenja LitzkendorfCenter of Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Leibniz Universität Hanover, Hanover, Germany.
Jan ZeidlerCenter of Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Leibniz Universität Hanover, Hanover, Germany.
Kathrin DammCenter of Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Leibniz Universität Hanover, Hanover, Germany.
J-Matthias Graf von der SchulenburgCenter of Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Leibniz Universität Hanover, Hanover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany European countries have recently implemented national rare disease plans. Although the network is strengthening, especially on the macro and meso levels, patients still go a long way through healthcare systems, with many health professionals involved and scarce evidence to gather. Specifically, patient involvement in the form of shared decision-making can offer further potential to increase healthcare systems' efficiency on a micro level. Therefore, we examine the implementation of the shared decision-making concept thus far, and explore whether efficiency potentials exist-which are particularly relevant within the rare disease field-and how they can be triggered.

methodsOur empirical evidence comes from 101 interviews conducted from March to September 2014 in Germany; 55 patients, 13 family members, and 33 health professionals participated in a qualitative interview study. Transcripts were analyzed using a directed qualitative content analysis.

resultsThe interviews indicate that the decision-making process is increasingly relevant in practice. In comparison, however, the shared decision-making agreement itself was rarely reported. A majority of interactions are dominated by individual, informed decision-making, followed by paternalistic approaches. The patient-physician relationship was characterized by a distorted trust-building process, which is affected by not only dependencies due to the diseases' severity and chronic course, but an often-reported stigmatization of patients as stimulants. Moreover, participation was high due to a pronounced engagement of those affected, diminishing as patients' strength vanish during their odyssey through health care systems. The particular roles of "expert patients" or "lay experts" in the rare disease field were revealed, with further potential in integrating the gathered information.

conclusionsThe study reveals the named efficiency potentials, which are unique for rare diseases and make the further integration of shared decision-making very attractive, facilitating diagnostics and disease management. It is noteworthy that integrating shared decision-making in the rare disease field does not only require strengthening the position of patients but also that of physicians. Efforts can be made to further integrate the concept within political frameworks to trigger the identified potential and assess the health-economic impact.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDecision Making, SharedHealth Information ExchangePatient ParticipationRare DiseasesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelFamilyFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedExpert patientPatient centered carePatient preferencesQualitative researchRare diseasesShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID31533712
PMCPMC6751820

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.