Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32002443›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2020

Surgeons' Views on Shared Decision-Making.

Suraj Kannan, Jayhyun Seo, Kevin R Riggs, Gail Geller, Emily F Boss, Zackary D Berger

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04925154 (PATHOS Tradeoffs in Patient Decision Making About Rectal Cancer Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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.

NCT04925154 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

PATHOS Tradeoffs in Patient Decision Making About Rectal Cancer Treatment: Benefits Compared to Quality Of Life.

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorSir Mortimer B. Davis - Jewish General HospitalRan2021 to 2028Enrolled192ConditionsPatient PreferenceArmsThe only intervention will be the information brochure that will be given after the first questionnaire.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Medical decision-making under risk and uncertainty: Anesthetists' decision to proceed with surgery.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Suraj KannanJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Jayhyun SeoJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Kevin R RiggsDivision of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Gail GellerDivision of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Emily F BossPediatric Otolaryngology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Zackary D BergerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

Funding

UAB K12 in Patient Centered Outcomes ResearchK12HS023009 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI SAAG, KENNETH G · 2014 to 2018
$4.0M
AHRQ HHS K08 HS022932AHRQ HHS K12 HS023009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeShared decision-making (SDM) has a significant role in surgical encounters, where decisions are influenced by both clinician and patient preferences. Herein, we sought to explore surgeons' practices and beliefs about SDM.

methodsWe performed a qualitative study consisting of semi-structured individual interviews with 18 surgeons from private practice and academic surgery practices in Baltimore, Maryland. We purposively sampled participants to maximize diversity of practice type (academic vs private), surgical specialty, gender, and experience level. Interview topics included benefits and challenges to patient involvement in decision-making, communicating uncertainty to patients, and use of decision aids. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes.

resultsSurgeons were supportive of patients being involved in decision-making, particularly in cases with uncertainty about treatment options. However, surgeons identified SDM as being more appropriate for patients whom surgeons perceived as interested in decision-making involvement and for decisions in which surgeons did not have strong preferences. Additionally, surgeons reported typically presenting only a subset of available options, remaining confident in their ability to filter less suitable options based on intuitive risk assessments. Surgeons differed in their approach to making recommendations, with some guiding patients towards what they saw as the correct or optimal decision while others sought to maintain neutrality and support of the patients' chosen decision.

conclusionsMany surgeons do not believe SDM is universally optimal for every surgical decision. They instead use assessments of patient disposition or potential clinical uncertainty to guide their perceived appropriateness of using SDM.

Indexed as

patient-centered careperceptionshared decision-makingsurgerysurgical decision-making

Identifiers

PMID32002443
PMCPMC6988707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.