Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33169239›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2021

Evaluation of the "3 Good Questions" program for shared decision-making in pediatric medicine: a feasibility study.

Robyn Rexwinkel, Hester Rippen, Inge J M Blokzijl-Boezeman, Zonja de Klein, Christel M Walhof, Josine van der Kraan, Marc A Benninga, Merit M Tabbers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Robyn RexwinkelEmma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Pediatric Gastroenterology, Room C2-312, PO Box 22700, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. r.rexwinkel@amsterdamumc.nl.
Hester RippenDutch Child and Hospital Foundation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Inge J M Blokzijl-BoezemanDepartment of Pediatrics, Bernhoven, Uden, The Netherlands.
Zonja de KleinDepartment of Pediatrics, Ommelander Hospital Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Christel M WalhofDepartment of Pediatrics, Rijnstate, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Josine van der KraanDutch Patient Federation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marc A BenningaEmma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Pediatric Gastroenterology, Room C2-312, PO Box 22700, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Merit M TabbersEmma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Pediatric Gastroenterology, Room C2-312, PO Box 22700, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The "3 Good Questions" program was developed to increase shared decision making. The current pilot-study determined the feasibility of these questions to increase shared decision-making in Dutch pediatric medicine. Pre-/postintervention surveys were used to include children (10-18 years) at pediatric outpatient clinics of four hospitals in the Netherlands. After their appointment, two different groups of children completed the questionnaires. Group 1 filled in the survey before the intervention; group 2 completed the survey after active implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program. The primary outcome was to determine the feasibility (reach, applicability). Secondary outcomes were related to patient involvement in healthcare and treatment decisions and decision-making process between child and healthcare professional. In total, 168 and 114 children in groups 1 and 2 (61 vs 63% female, P = 0.68; age 13.3 ± 2.4 vs 13.8 ± 2.4 years, P = 0.72), respectively, completed the questionnaire. In group 2, 44% of children were aware of the "3 Good Questions", of whom 18% posed ≥ 1 of the "3 Good Questions" during their appointment (feasibility). The "3 Good Questions" program led to more shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9: P = < 0.001;95%CI: - 2.43 to - 1.17). The majority of children who have read or heard of the "3 Good Questions" would recommend this program to other children.Conclusion: Implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program seemed feasible, although it is necessary to further explore the implementation of this program at national level as a simple way for children and healthcare professionals to share decisions in practice. What is known • Children have the right to be included in decision-making, and inclusion can improve patient satisfaction and quality of care, and reduce costs. • The "3 Good Questions" program was successfully implemented in adult healthcare to increase shared decision making, and therefore these "3 Good Questions" have been adapted to a child version. What is new • In this pilot study, we found that the implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program to increase shared decision-making in pediatric medicine seemed feasible. Although it is necessary to further explore the implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program at national level as a simple way for children and healthcare professionals to share decisions in practice.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Making, SharedAdolescentAdultChildFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleNetherlandsPatient ParticipationPilot Projects3 Good QuestionsChildrenInterventionShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID33169239
PMCPMC7940148

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.