ArticleBMC medical education2020
A best-worst scaling survey of medical students' perspective on implementing shared decision-making in China.
Article in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Pooled it
- Best-Worst Scaling Survey of Inpatients' Preferences in Medical Decision-Making Participation in China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Investigating Medical Student's Preferences for Internet-Based Healthcare Services: A Best-Worst Scaling Survey.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Theoretical model and measurement of shared decision making in web-based pharmaceutical care consultation.Digital healthArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to ascertain the importance rankings of factors affecting the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) in medical students in China and determine whether these factors were consistent across the respondents' individual characteristics.
methodStudents studying clinical medicine were recruited from three medical universities in China. A cross-sectional online survey using best-worst object scaling with a balanced incomplete block design was adopted to investigate their preference towards implementing SDM in China. Count analysis, multinomial logit analysis and mixed logit analysis were used to estimate the preference heterogeneity of the SDM factors among respondents.
resultsA total of 574 medical students completed the online survey. The three most important factors for implementing SDM were trust and respect, (providing) high-quality medical information and multi-disciplinary collaboration. The mixed logit regression model identified significant heterogeneity in SDM preferences among respondents, and sub-group analysis showed that some heterogeneities varied in respondents by sex, study programs and their experience of visiting doctors.
conclusionThe importance rankings provide rich information for implementing SDM and facilitate the reform of education in medical schools in China. However, the heterogeneities in SDM preference need further explorations.
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.