Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31560835›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2019

Implementation of the three good questions-A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments.

Mirjam M Garvelink, Marja Jillissen, Anouk Knops, Jan A M Kremer, Rosella P M G Hermens, Marjan J Meinders

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Implementation of the three good questions-A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mirjam M GarvelinkRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5616-0597
Marja JillissenRadboud university medical center, Improvement & Implementation Group, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6897-1928
Anouk KnopsNetherlands Patients Federation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jan A M KremerRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0495-0201
Rosella P M G HermensRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7624-7120
Marjan J MeindersRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6491-7035
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLNetherlands Federation of University Medical Centres · NL

Funding

Radboud University Medical Center
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the feasibility of pragmatic implementation strategies for three good questions (in Dutch: Drie Goede Vragen; 3GV. What are my options; what are the risks and benefits related to these options; and what does this mean for my situation?) to increase shared decision-making (SDM) efforts in Dutch secondary care, and identify barriers and facilitators of implementation.

methodsConvergent mixed-method design: pre-post surveys with patients attending one of six clinical departments in a Dutch Hospital, post-intervention interviews with patients and health-care professionals. Primary outcomes: feasibility (reach, use of 3GV). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: SDM, experiences with 3GV and decision making. Interviews focused on barriers and facilitators of 3GV use. Interviews were content coded and categorized into determinants of behaviour change.

results35% of the respondents who had heard of 3GV (52%) used all three questions. 3GV use did not lead to more SDM (SDMQ9 M = Δ0.3;SE = 2.2) but patients felt empowered to decide (88%) and to SDM (86%). Barriers were as follows: time investment, other SDM projects and perception that the need to use 3GV differs per patient/consultation. Respondents preferred to use 3GV as they saw fit for the consultation, instead of literally asking them. Facilitators: easy, accessible information materials that can be flexibly used.

conclusionImplementation of 3GV seemed feasible, although influenced by contextual characteristics (eg type of decisions, patients, on-going interventions). 3GV contributed to important elements of SDM, and respondents were willing to apply them in a way that suited their situation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We recommend continuation of current and new implementation strategies to enable 3GV implementation in secondary care.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision Making, SharedAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleHospital DepartmentsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPhysician-Patient Relationsfeasibility studypatient communicationsecondary careshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID31560835
PMCPMC6882265
OpenAlexW2975477051

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.