Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33319621›Full record

ReviewMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2021

What Works in Implementing Patient Decision Aids in Routine Clinical Settings? A Rapid Realist Review and Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration.

Natalie Joseph-Williams, Purva Abhyankar, Laura Boland, Paulina Bravo, Alison T Brenner, Suzanne Brodney, Angela Coulter, Anik Giguère, Aubri Hoffman, Mirjam Körner and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 121 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
121citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

121 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of patient decision aids for hypertension.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. The Effect of Patient Decision Aid Attributes on Patient Outcomes: A Network Meta-Analysis of a Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. A decision aid to support family carers of people living with dementia towards the end-of-life: Coproduction process, outcome and reflections.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Pooled it
  10. Providing information to prepare breast cancer patients for their surgical consultation: barriers and recommendations (an analysis from Alliance A231701CD).Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Initial development and usability testing of a digital fertility preservation navigator for newly diagnosed young adult cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

61 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

18 authors.

Natalie Joseph-WilliamsSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8944-2969
Purva AbhyankarFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Laura BolandThe Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, School of Health Sciences, Ottawa, Canada and Western University, School of Health Studies, London, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8680-9844
Paulina BravoSchool of Nursing, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Alison T BrennerDivision of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Medical School, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Suzanne BrodneyInformed Medical Decisions Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4405-0726
Angela CoulterCoulter & Coulter Ltd, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6308-8375
Anik GiguèreDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
Aubri HoffmanDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4803-8668
Mirjam KörnerMedical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Medical Faculty, Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg, Germany.
Aisha LangfordDepartment of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1758-691X
France LégaréDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université of Laval, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2296-6696
Daniel MatlockDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9597-9642
Nora MoumjidClaude Bernard Lyon 1 University, Léon Bérard Cancer Centre, Lyon, Rhone-Alpes, France.
Sarah MunroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Karina Dahl SteffensenCenter for Shared Decision Making, Region of Southern Denmark and Department of Clinical Oncology, Vejle/Lillebaelt University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark and Institute of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Christine StirlingSchool of Nursing, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Trudy van der WeijdenCAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Department of Family Medicine, Faculty Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecades of effectiveness research has established the benefits of using patient decision aids (PtDAs), yet broad clinical implementation has not yet occurred. Evidence to date is mainly derived from highly controlled settings; if clinicians and health care organizations are expected to embed PtDAs as a means to support person-centered care, we need to better understand what this might look like outside of a research setting.

aimThis review was conducted in response to the IPDAS Collaboration's evidence update process, which informs their published standards for PtDA quality and effectiveness. The aim was to develop context-specific program theories that explain why and how PtDAs are successfully implemented in routine healthcare settings.

methodsRapid realist review methodology was used to identify articles that could contribute to theory development. We engaged key experts and stakeholders to identify key sources; this was supplemented by electronic database (Medline and CINAHL), gray literature, and forward/backward search strategies. Initial theories were refined to develop realist context-mechanism-outcome configurations, and these were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

resultsWe developed 8 refined theories, using data from 23 implementation studies (29 articles), to describe the mechanisms by which PtDAs become successfully implemented into routine clinical settings. Recommended implementation strategies derived from the program theory include 1) co-production of PtDA content and processes (or local adaptation), 2) training the entire team, 3) preparing and prompting patients to engage, 4) senior-level buy-in, and 5) measuring to improve.

conclusionsWe recommend key strategies that organizations and individuals intending to embed PtDAs routinely can use as a practical guide. Further work is needed to understand the importance of context in the success of different implementation studies.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesDelivery of Health CareHumansimplementationpatient decision aidsrapid realist reviewrealist methodsshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID33319621
PMCPMC8474331

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.