Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33435816›Full record

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

Differences in Implementation Outcomes of a Shared Decision-Making Program for Men with Prostate Cancer between an Academic Medical Center and County Health Care System.

Kevin D Li, Christopher S Saigal, Megha D Tandel, Lorna Kwan, Moira Inkelas, Dana L Alden, Stanley K Frencher, Kiran Gollapudi, Jeremy Blumberg, Jamal Nabhani and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kevin D LiDepartment of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0550-0250
Christopher S SaigalDepartment of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Megha D TandelDepartment of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Lorna KwanDepartment of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Moira InkelasUniversity of California Los Angeles, Jonathan and Karin Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Dana L AldenUniversity of Hawai'i at Manoa Shidler College of Business, Marketing, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Stanley K FrencherDepartment of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Kiran GollapudiDepartment of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jeremy BlumbergDepartment of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jamal NabhaniLos Angeles County Department of Health Services, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jonathan BergmanDepartment of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision making (SDM) has long been advocated as the preferred way for physicians and men with prostate cancer to make treatment decisions. However, the implementation of formal SDM programs in routine care remains limited, and implementation outcomes for disadvantaged populations are especially poorly described. We describe the implementation outcomes between academic and county health care settings.

methodsWe administered a decision aid (DA) for men with localized prostate cancer at an academic center and across a county health care system. Our implementation was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. We assessed the effectiveness of the DA through a postappointment patient survey.

resultsSites differed by patient demographic/clinical characteristics. Reach (DA invitation rate) was similar and insensitive to implementation strategies at the academic center and county (66% v. 60%,

conclusionsSuccessful DA implementation efforts should focus on patient engagement and access. SDM may broadly benefit patients and health care systems regardless of patient demographic/clinical characteristics.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedProstatic NeoplasmsAcademic Medical CentersDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHumansMalePatient Participationdecision aidselectronic decision aidsimplementationprostate cancershared decision makingvulnerable populations

Identifiers

PMID33435816
PMCPMC10262322
OpenAlexW3119478131

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.