ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021
Association of shared decision making with inpatient satisfaction: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Decision Aids on Decision Knowledge, Conflict, and Satisfaction Among Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of nursing management · 2026Pooled it
- The impact of shared decision-making on patient-reported outcomes in Traditional Chinese Medicine in Shanghai, China: a cross-sectional study using structural equation modeling.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Shared decision-making in urinary reconstruction among radical cystectomy patients: a thematic analysis of patient and provider perspectives in China.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Development and Content Validation of a Person-Centered Care Instrument for Healthcare Providers.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Translation and Psychometric Evaluation in Cancer Care of the German Version of collaboRATEHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Mechanism Assessment of Physician Discourse Strategies and Patient Consultation Behaviors on Online Health Platforms: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Power asymmetry and embarrassment in shared decision-making: predicting participation preference and decisional conflict.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Exploring Patient Preferences Related to Shared Decision-Making in Chronic Disease Management.Cureus · 2024Article
- Getting specific: participation preference in urooncological decision-making.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Status quo of advanced cancer patients participating in shared decision-making in China: a mixed study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Article
- Best-Worst Scaling Survey of Inpatients' Preferences in Medical Decision-Making Participation in China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Shared decision-making in healthcare in mainland China: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Communication Skills (CS) training of physicians in China and its role in actual challenges of patient-physician relationship: a cross-sectional survey.BMC medical education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe assessed inpatient perceived shared decision making (SDM) and tested the association of SDM with inpatient satisfaction in public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai, China.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of 2585 inpatients in 47 public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai in July and August 2018 was conducted. We assessed overall SDM and 4 aspects of SDM and tested the factors influencing SDM and the association of SDM with patient satisfaction (patient satisfaction with physician services, medical expenses, outcomes and overall inpatient care), by adopting linear or two-level regression models.
resultsThe positive response rate (PRR) and high positive response rate (HPRR) to overall SDM among the inpatients of public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai were relatively high (95.30% and 87.86%, respectively), while the HPRR to "My physician informed me of different treatment alternatives" was relatively low (80.09%). In addition, the inpatients who underwent surgery during admission had higher HPRRs and adjusted HPRRs to overall SDM than those who did not undergo surgery. The study showed that the adjusted high satisfaction rates (HSRs) with physician services, medical expenses, outcomes and overall inpatient care among the inpatients with high level of overall SDM were higher (96.50%, 68.44%, 89.50% and 92.60%) than those among the inpatients without a high level of overall SDM (71.77%, 35.19%, 57.30% and 67.49%). The greatest differences in the adjusted HSRs between the inpatients with and without a high level of SDM were found in inpatient satisfaction with medical expenses and informed consent in SDM. Moreover, 46.22% of the variances in the HSRs with overall inpatient care across the hospitals were attributed to the hospital type (general hospitals vs. specialty hospitals).
conclusionsInpatient PRRs and HPRRs to SDM in public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai are relatively high overall but lower to information regarding alternatives. SDM can be affected by the SDM preference of both the patients and physicians and medical condition. Patient satisfaction can be improved through better SDM and should be committed at the hospital level.
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.