Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32025641›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2019

Opportunities for addressing gaps in primary care shared decision-making with technology: a mixed-methods needs assessment.

Anjali J Misra, Shawn Y Ong, Arjun Gokhale, Sameer Khan, Edward R Melnick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Understanding access to general practice through the lens of candidacy: a critical review of the literature.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Review
  3. Review
  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

5 authors.

Anjali J MisraDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9075-1822
Shawn Y OngDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Arjun GokhaleDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Sameer KhanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Edward R MelnickDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
AHRQ HHS K08 HS021271NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo analyze current practices in shared decision-making (SDM) in primary care and perform a needs assessment for the role of information technology (IT) interventions. MATERIALS AND

methodsA mixed-methods study was conducted in three phases: (1) ethnographic observation of clinical encounters, (2) patient interviews, and (3) physician interviews. SDM was measured using the validated OPTION scale. Semistructured interviews followed an interview guide (developed by our multidisciplinary team) informed by the Traditional Decision Conflict Scale and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Field notes were independently coded and analyzed by two reviewers in Dedoose.

resultsTwenty-four patient encounters were observed in 3 diverse practices with an average OPTION score of 57.2 (0-100 scale; 95% confidence interval [CI], 51.8-62.6). Twenty-two patient and 8 physician interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was achieved. Cohen's kappa, measuring coder agreement, was 0.42. Patient domains were: establishing trust, influence of others, flexibility, frustrations, values, and preferences. Physician domains included frustrations, technology (concerns, existing use, and desires), and decision making (current methods used, challenges, and patients' understanding). DISCUSSION: Given low SDM observed, multiple opportunities for technology to enhance SDM exist based on specific OPTION items that received lower scores, including: (1) checking the patient's preferred information format, (2) asking the patient's preferred level of involvement in decision making, and (3) providing an opportunity for deferring a decision. Based on data from interviews, patients and physicians value information exchange and are open to technologies that enhance communication of care options.

conclusionFuture primary care IT platforms should prioritize the 3 quantitative gaps identified to improve physician-patient communication and relationships. Additionally, SDM tools should seek to standardize common workflow steps across decisions and focus on barriers to increasing adoption of effective SDM tools into routine primary care.

Indexed as

decision makingmedical informaticsneeds assessmentphysician–patient relationsprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID32025641
PMCPMC6993997

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.