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.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Preoperative pathways in adults with multiple long-term conditions undergoing major surgery: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Patient Information and Surgery Decisions: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Health economics · 2026Article
- Preoperative physical resilience indicators and their associations with postoperative outcomes.GeroScience · 2025Article
- Exploring patient perspectives on shared decision making about bariatric surgery in two healthcare systems.Obesity science & practice · 2024Article
- Perioperative shared decision making - How do we train clinicians?PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Decision Considerations and Strategies for Lip Surgery in Patients with Cleft lip/Palate: A Qualitative Study.Journal of dermatology and dermatitis · 2023Article
- Opportunities for shared decision-making about major surgery with high-risk patients: a multi-method qualitative study.British journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Quality of death after elective surgery: a questionnaire survey for the bereaved family.JA clinical reports · 2023Article
- Surgeons' Perspective of Decision Making in Recurrent Diverticulitis: A Qualitative Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2022Article
- Accidental Low-Velocity Penetrating Brain Injury by Glass Marble.Asian journal of neurosurgery · 2022Article
- Association of shared decision making with inpatient satisfaction: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Patient Perceived Involvement in Their Treatment is Influenced by Factors Other Than Independently Rated Clinician Communication Effectiveness.Journal of patient experience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What 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.