Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32912191›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Representativeness of personality and involvement preferences in a web-based survey on healthcare decision-making.

Søren Birkeland, Thea Linkhorst, Anders Haakonsson, Michael John Barry, Sören Möller

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Confucian Familism and Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Cancers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Søren BirkelandDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark and Open Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, J. B. Winsløws Vej 9 a, 3. floor, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark. sbirkeland@health.sdu.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7857-3181
Thea LinkhorstDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark and Open Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, J. B. Winsløws Vej 9 a, 3. floor, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.
Anders HaakonssonDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark and Open Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, J. B. Winsløws Vej 9 a, 3. floor, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.
Michael John BarryMGH Division of General Internal Medicine & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Sören MöllerDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark and Open Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, J. B. Winsløws Vej 9 a, 3. floor, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.

Funding

Danish Health Insurance Foundation NAthe Lilly & Herbert Hansen's Foundation NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObtaining a sample that is representative of the group of interest is of utmost importance in questionnaire studies. In a survey using a state authorized web-portal for citizen communication with authorities, we wanted to investigate the view of adult men on patient involvement in health care decision-making regarding Prostate-Specific Antigen test for prostatic cancer. In this paper, we report on sample characteristics and representativeness of our sample in terms of personality and baseline involvement preferences.

methodsWe compared personality profiles (BFI-10) and baseline healthcare decision-making preferences (CPS) in our sample (n = 6756) to internationally available datasets. Pooled data from a) US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (n = 1512), b) Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Belgium (n = 1136), and c) Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark (n = 1313) were used for BFI-10 comparisons. Regarding CPS, we compared our sample with three previous datasets relating to decision-making in cancer (n = 425, 387, and 199).

resultsAlthough statistically significant differences particularly appeared in large dataset comparisons, sample BFI-10 and CPS profiles mostly were within the range of those previously reported. Similarity was greatest in BFI-10 comparisons with group a) where no statistically significant difference could be established in factors 'agreeableness' and 'neuroticism' (p = .095 and .578, respectively).

conclusionDespite some variation, our sample displays personality and baseline preference profiles that are generally similar to those described in previous international studies. For example, this was the case with the BFI-10 'agreeableness' measure (incl. trust and fault-finding items), an important factor in healthcare decision-making.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient ParticipationPersonalityAgedAustraliaBelgiumCanadaFinlandGermanyHealth SurveysHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsNeuroticismBioethicsCancerDecision makingGeneralizabilityInternet-based surveyMedical lawPersonalityRepresentativenessResearch methodology

Identifiers

PMID32912191
PMCPMC7488239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.