Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31852700›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review.

Hanna Bomhof-Roordink, Fania R Gärtner, Anne M Stiggelbout, Arwen H Pieterse

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 230 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
230citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–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

230 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Communication Processes Related to Decision-Making in Medication Management Between Healthcare Providers, Older People and Their Carers: A Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure-process-outcome model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

170 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Hanna Bomhof-RoordinkBiomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4339-1737
Fania R GärtnerBiomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0351-0204
Anne M StiggelboutBiomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6293-4509
Arwen H PieterseBiomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands pieterse@lumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-6395-0052

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting.

designSystematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM. INFORMATION SOURCES: Academic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019.

resultsForty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall

conclusionsThis review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key.

trial registrationPROSPERO registration CRD42015019740.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDecision MakingModels, TheoreticalHumansPatient Preferenceconceptdecision processdefinitionhealthcare professionalmodelpatientshared decision makingtime trends

Identifiers

PMID31852700
PMCPMC6937101

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.