Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32376751›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Understanding decision making about major surgery: protocol for a qualitative study of shared decision making by high-risk patients and their clinical teams.

Sara Shaw, Gemma Hughes, Tim Stephens, Rupert Pearse, John Prowle, Richard Edmund Ashcroft, Ester Avagliano, James Day, Mark Edsell, Jennifer Edwards and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Surgeons' Perspective of Decision Making in Recurrent Diverticulitis: A Qualitative Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2022
    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

11 authors.

Sara ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK sara.shaw@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7014-4793
Gemma HughesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2930-1125
Tim StephensSchool of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Rupert PearseBarts and the London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
John ProwleBarts and the London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Richard Edmund AshcroftSchool of Law, City University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6065-4717
Ester AvaglianoDepartment of Anaesthesia, St. George's University Hospitals Foundation Trust, London, UK.
James DayDepartment of Anaesthesia, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Mark EdsellDepartment of Anaesthesia, St. George's University Hospitals Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jennifer EdwardsDepartment of Anaesthesia, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, UK.
Leslie EverestPatient Representative, Leeds, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0218-20001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSurgical treatments are being offered to more patients than ever before, and increasingly to high-risk patients (typically multimorbid and over 75). Shared decision making is seen as essential practice. However, little is currently known about what 'good' shared decision making involves nor how it applies in the context of surgery for high-risk patients. This new study aims to identify how high-risk patients, their families and clinical teams negotiate decision making for major surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Focusing on major joint replacement, colorectal and cardiac surgery, we use qualitative methods to explore how patients, their families and clinicians negotiate decision making (including interactional, communicative and informational aspects and the extent to which these are perceived as shared) and reflect back on the decisions they made. Phase 1 involves video recording 15 decision making encounters about major surgery between patients, their carers/families and clinicians; followed by up to 90 interviews (with the same patient, carer and clinician participants) immediately after a decision has been made and again 3-6 months later. Phase 2 involves focus groups with a wider group of (up to 90) patients and (up to 30) clinicians to test out emerging findings and inform development of shared decision making scenarios (3-5 summary descriptions of how decisions are made). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study forms the first part in a 6-year programme of research, Optimising Shared decision-makIng for high-RIsk major Surgery (OSIRIS). Ethical challenges around involving patients at a challenging time in their lives will be overseen by the programme steering committee, which includes strong patient representation and a lay chair. In addition to academic outputs, we will produce a typology of decision making scenarios for major surgery to feed back to patients, professionals and service providers and inform subsequent work in the OSIRIS programme.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, ReplacementCardiac Surgical ProceduresDecision Making, SharedColonFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMalePatient ParticipationQualitative ResearchResearch Designadult surgerycommunicationhigh riskqualitative researchshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID32376751
PMCPMC7223149

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.