Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32306972›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography.

Kiran Pohar Manhas, Karin Olson, Katie Churchill, Sunita Vohra, Tracy Wasylak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. 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
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Kiran Pohar Manhasc/o Strategic Clinical Networks™, Alberta Health Services, Southport Tower, 10301 Southport Lane SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2W 1S7, Canada. Kiran.poharmanhas@ahs.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1486-2387
Karin OlsonIntegrative Health Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Katie Churchillc/o Strategic Clinical Networks™, Alberta Health Services, Southport Tower, 10301 Southport Lane SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2W 1S7, Canada.
Sunita VohraIntegrative Health Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Tracy Wasylakc/o Strategic Clinical Networks™, Alberta Health Services, Southport Tower, 10301 Southport Lane SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2W 1S7, Canada.

Funding

Alberta Health Services ASK-MI Community Rehabilitation ProjectInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research 201705HI7-388576-170744
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision-making (SDM) can advance patient satisfaction, understanding, goal fulfilment, and patient-reported outcomes. We lack clarity on whether this physician-focused literature applies to community rehabilitation, and on the integration of SDM policies in healthcare settings. We aimed to understand patient and provider perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) in community rehabilitation, particularly the barriers and facilitators to SDM.

methodsWe used a focused ethnography involving 14 community rehabilitation sites across Alberta, including rural, regional-urban and metropolitan-urban sites. We conducted semi-structured interviews that asked participants about their positive and negative communication experiences (n = 23 patients; n = 26 providers).

resultsWe found SDM experiences fluctuated between extremes: Getting Patient Buy-In and Aligning Expectations. The former is provider-driven, prescriptive and less flexible; the latter is collaborative, inquisitive and empowering. In Aligning Expectations, patients and providers express humility and openness, communicate in the language of ask and listen, and view education as empowering. Patients and providers described barriers and facilitators to SDM in community rehabilitation. Facilitators included geography influencing context and connections; consistent, patient-specific messaging; patient lifestyle, capacity and perceived outlook; provider confidence, experience and perceived independence; provider training; and perceptions of more time (and control over time) for appointments. SDM barriers included lack of privacy; waitlists and financial barriers to access; provider approach; how choices are framed; and, patient's perceived assertiveness, lack of capacity, and level of deference.

conclusionsWe have found both excellent experiences and areas for improvement for applying SDM in community rehabilitation. We proffer recommendations to advance high-quality SDM in community rehabilitation based on promoting facilitators and overcoming barriers. This research will support the spread, scale and evaluation of a new Model of Care in rehabilitation by the provincial health system, which aimed to promote patient-centred care.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedAlbertaAnthropology, CulturalCommunity Health ServicesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMalePatientsQualitative ResearchRehabilitationBuy-inCommunityExpectationsPatient perspectivesProvider perspectivesRehabilitationShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID32306972
PMCPMC7168887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.