ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2020
Surgeons' Views on Shared Decision-Making.
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.
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.
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.
PATHOS Tradeoffs in Patient Decision Making About Rectal Cancer Treatment: Benefits Compared to Quality Of Life.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Do patients scheduled for inguinal hernia repair express a preference for the repair technique? What questions do they frequently ask?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Observational
- Informed consent practices among emergency staff for patients undergoing emergency surgery in the emergency surgical units of two tertiary teaching hospitals in Uganda: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Medical decision-making under risk and uncertainty: Anesthetists' decision to proceed with surgery.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
- Can We Enhance Shared Decision-making for Periacetabular Osteotomy Surgery? A Qualitative Study of Patient Experiences.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Skills to act from a Positive Health approach: in comparison with shared decision-making: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators of healthcare professionals in integrating shared decision-making in pancreatic cancer treatment: A network approach.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Treatment options for patients with pilonidal sinus disease: PITSTOP, a mixed-methods evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Observational
- Patient preferences as human factors for health data recommender systems and shared decision making in orthopaedic practice.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Exploring Key Elements of Surgical Shared Decision Making for Providers and Older Adults.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
32002443PMC6988707What OpenQuestion holds
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.