Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32819982›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Measuring shared decision-making and collaborative goal setting in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography using cross-sectional surveys in Canada.

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

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Kiran Pohar ManhasStrategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada kiran.poharmanhas@ahs.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-1486-2387
Karin OlsonFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Katie ChurchillHealth Professions, Strategy & Practice, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Peter FarisAnalytics (DIMR), Health Services Statistical & Analytic Methods, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Sunita VohraPediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Tracy WasylakStrategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

Canadian Institutes for Health Research 201705HI7-388576-170744
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe and measure the shared decision-making (SDM) experience, including goal-setting experiences, from the perspective of patients and providers in diverse community-rehabilitation settings.

designProspective, longitudinal surveys.

setting13 primary level-of-care community-rehabilitation sites in diverse areas varying in geography, patient population and provider discipline341 adult, English-speaking patient-participants, and 66 provider-participants. MEASURES: Alberta Shared decision-maKing Measurement Instrument (dyadic tool measuring SDM), WatLX (outpatient rehabilitation experience) and demographic questionnaire. Survey packages distributed at two timepoints (T0=recruitment; T1=3 months later).

resultsWe found that among 341 patient-provider dyads, 26.4% agreed that the appointment at recruitment involved high-quality SDM. Patient perceptions of goal-setting suggested that 19.6% of patients did not set a goal for their care, and only 11.4% set goals in functional language that tied directly to an activity/role/responsibility that was meaningful to their life. Better SDM was clinically associated with higher total family income (p=0.045).

conclusionsThese findings provide evidence for the importance of SDM and goal setting in community rehabilitation. Among patients, lower ratings of SDM corresponded with less recognition of their preferences. Actionable strategies include supporting financially vulnerable patients in realising SDM through training of providers to make extra space for such patients to share their preferences and better preparing patients to articulate their preferences. We recommend more research into strategies that advance highly functional goal setting with patients, and that lessen survey ceiling effects.

Indexed as

Anthropology, CulturalGoalsAdultAlbertaCross-Sectional StudiesDecision MakingHumansPatient ParticipationProspective Studiesethics (see medical ethics)health services administration & managementmedical ethicsquality in health carerehabilitation medicine

Identifiers

PMID32819982
PMCPMC7443299

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.