Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32779137›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020

Dealing with the Lack of Time for Detailed Shared Decision-making in Primary Care: Everyday Shared Decision-making.

Tanner J Caverly, Rodney A Hayward

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07073898 (Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT07073898 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of UtahRan2025 to 2026Enrolled65ConditionsLung CancerArmsRepeated Text Messages (TM+), Conversational Agent (CA), Educational Video, Proactive Patient Navigation (PPN), Reactive Patient Navigation (RPN)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Optimizing conversations on treatment management in hereditary angioedema: healthcare professional and patient perspectives on long-term prophylaxis and shared decision-making.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Shared Decision-Making. A Primer for Clinicians.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Dynamic postoperative prognosis and follow-up optimization for gastric cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy: a multicenter retrospective study.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Tanner J CaverlyVA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. tcaverly@med.umich.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6560-0547
Rodney A HaywardVA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

Implementing Shared Decision-Making for Cancer Screening in Primary CareIK2HX002246 · VA · VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION · PI CAVERLY, TANNER J · 2018 to 2022
–
HSRD VA IK2 HX002246
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policymakers and researchers are strongly encouraging clinicians to support patient autonomy through shared decision-making (SDM). In setting policies for clinical care, decision-makers need to understand that current models of SDM have tended to focus on major decisions (e.g., surgeries and chemotherapy) and focused less on everyday primary care decisions. Most decisions in primary care are substantive everyday decisions: intermediate-stakes decisions that occur dozens of times every day, yet are non-trivial for patients, such as whether routine mammography should start at age 40, 45, or 50. Expectations that busy clinicians use current models of SDM (here referred to as "detailed" SDM) for these decisions can feel overwhelming to clinicians. Evidence indicates that detailed SDM is simply not realistic for most of these decisions and without a feasible alternative, clinicians usually default to a decision-making approach with little to no personalization. We propose, for discussion and refinement, a compromise approach to personalizing these decisions (everyday SDM). Everyday SDM is based on a feasible process for supporting patient autonomy that also allows clinicians to continue being respectful health advocates for their patients. We propose that alternatives to detailed SDM are needed to make progress toward more patient-centered care.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient ParticipationAdultDecision Making, SharedHumansPatient-Centered CarePrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID32779137
PMCPMC7572954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.