Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31941765›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2020

Development and evaluation of a patient decision aid for patients considering ongoing medical or surgical treatment options for ulcerative colitis using a mixed-methods approach: protocol for DISCUSS study.

Daniel Mark Baker, Matthew James Lee, Anne-Mairead Folan, Sue Blackwell, Kerry Robinson, Rebecca Wootton, Shaji Sebastian, Steven R Brown, Georgina Louise Jones, Alan J Lobo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2020. 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
2.4field-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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Beyond the Average: Modeling Individual-Specific Preferences for Ulcerative Colitis Surgery.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel Mark BakerLeicester Medical School, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3708-790X
Matthew James LeeDepartment of General Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9971-1635
Anne-Mairead FolanDepartment of Psychology, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK.
Sue BlackwellACPGBI Patient Liaison Group, London, UK.
Kerry RobinsonInflammatory Bowel Disease Nurse Specialist, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Rebecca WoottonStoma Care Specialist Nurse, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Shaji SebastianDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, Kingston upon Hull, UK.
Steven R BrownDepartment of General Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Georgina Louise JonesDeparment of Psychology, Leeds Beckett University Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds, UK.
Alan J LoboGastroenterology Unit, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK alan.lobo@nhs.net.
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBLeeds Beckett University · GBHull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionApproximately 20%-30% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) require surgery, the majority of these being elective due to chronic symptoms refractory to medical treatment. The decision for surgery is difficult and dependent on patient preferences. Current resources for patients considering surgery have been found not to meet minimum international standards. The overall aim of the 'DISCUSS' study is to develop and evaluate a new patient decision aid (PtDA) for patients considering surgery for UC created in line with international minimum standards. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective mixed-methods study of adults (18+ years) who are considering surgical intervention for UC across two regional centres in Yorkshire, UK. This study is in three stages. In stage 1 we will develop the PtDA and its content via systematic reviews and a patient questionnaire. In stage 2 we will assess the face validity of the PtDA using mixed-methods on key stakeholders using both semistructured interviews and questionnaires, following which the PtDA will be refined. In stage 3 we will assess the acceptability of using the PtDA in clinical practice. This will use a mixed-methods approach on clinicians and patients who are considering undergoing elective surgery. Questionnaires including the Preparation for Decision-Making Scale, a measure of anxiety and decisional conflict will be analysed at two timepoints using paired sample t-tests and CIs. Interviews with patients and clinicians will be analysed using thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval from North East-Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 19/NE/0073) and Health Research Authority approval (Ref: 257044) have been granted. Results will be published in open access peer-reviewed journals, presented in conferences and distributed through the Crohn's and Colitis UK charity. External endorsement will be sought from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration inventory of PtDAs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018115513, CRD42019126186, CRD42019125193.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDisease ManagementColitis, UlcerativeDecision Support TechniquesFollow-Up StudiesHumansPatient ParticipationPatient PreferenceProspective StudiesSurveys and Questionnairesdecision makingsurgeryulcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID31941765
PMCPMC7045112
OpenAlexW2999400507

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.