Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31727667›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Evaluation of the Choosing Wisely Australia 5 Questions resource and a shared decision-making preparation video: protocol for an online experiment.

Danielle Marie Muscat, Edward Hoi-Fan Chang, Rachel Thompson, Erin Cvejic, Marguerite Tracy, Joshua Zadro, Jessica Kathleen Smith, Robyn Lindner, Kirsten McCaffery

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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 · 2023
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2026
    Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Danielle Marie MuscatSydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia danielle.muscat@sydney.edu.au.
Edward Hoi-Fan ChangSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rachel ThompsonSydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Erin CvejicSydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Marguerite TracySchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Joshua ZadroInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8981-2125
Jessica Kathleen SmithSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Robyn LindnerNPS Medicinewise, Strawberry Hills, New South Wales, Australia.
Kirsten McCafferySydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionChoosing Wisely, an international effort to reduce low value care worldwide, considers communication between clinicians and patients during routine clinical encounters a key mechanism for change. In Australia, Choosing Wisely has developed a 5 Questions resource to facilitate better conversations. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the Choosing Wisely Australia 5 Questions resource and a video designed to prepare patients for question-asking and participation in shared decision-making on (a) self-efficacy to ask questions and participate in shared decision-making, (b) intention to participate in shared decision-making and (c) a range of secondary outcomes. The secondary aim of this study is to determine whether participants' health literacy modifies the effects of the interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design (preparation video: yes, no × Choosing Wisely 5 Questions resource: yes, no × health literacy: adequate, inadequate). Participants will be recruited by an online market research company, presented with a hypothetical non-specific low back pain scenario, and randomised to study groups stratified by health literacy. Quantitative primary and secondary outcome data will be analysed as intention-to-treat using appropriate regression models (ie, linear regression for continuous outcomes, logistic regression for dichotomous categorical outcomes). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (protocol number: 2018/965). The results from this work will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international journals, conferences and updates with collaborating public health bodies. Resources developed for this study will be made available to patients and clinicians following trial completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial has been registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (trial number: 376477) and the stage is Pre-results.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision Making, SharedHealth ResourcesAustraliaHealth LiteracyHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTelecommunicationsUnnecessary Proceduresdecision makinghealth literacymedical overusepatient participationquestion prompt listshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID31727667
PMCPMC6886943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.