ArticleBMJ open2020
Measuring shared decision-making and collaborative goal setting in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography using cross-sectional surveys in Canada.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploration of collaborative goal setting in occupational therapy for adults with aphasia.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2025Article
- Article
- Characteristics of goal-setting tools in adult rehabilitation: A scoping review.Clinical rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Barriers and Stimulus in Shared Decision Making Among Aesthetic Dermatologists in China: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Understanding the Professional Care Experience of Patients with Stroke: A Qualitative Study Using In-Depth Interviews.International journal of integrated careArticle
- Difficult Decisions for Older Canadians Receiving Home Care, and Why They Are So Difficult: A Web-Based Decisional Needs Assessment.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.