Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33517579›Full record

Trial reportHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021

Decision aids to prepare patients for shared decision making: Two randomized controlled experiments on the impact of awareness of preference-sensitivity and personal motives.

Simone Korger, Marie Eggeling, Ulrike Cress, Joachim Kimmerle, Martina Bientzle

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Simone KorgerKnowledge Construction Lab, Leibniz-Institut fuer Wissensmedien, Tuebingen, Germany.
Marie EggelingKnowledge Construction Lab, Leibniz-Institut fuer Wissensmedien, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9749-7321
Ulrike CressKnowledge Construction Lab, Leibniz-Institut fuer Wissensmedien, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8996-8303
Joachim KimmerleKnowledge Construction Lab, Leibniz-Institut fuer Wissensmedien, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6345-9498
Martina BientzleKnowledge Construction Lab, Leibniz-Institut fuer Wissensmedien, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1312-4032

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo participate in shared decision making (SDM), patients need to understand their options and develop trust in their own decision-making abilities. Two experiments investigated the potential of decision aids (DAs) in preparing patients for SDM by raising awareness of preference-sensitivity (Study 1) and showing possible personal motives for decision making (Study 2) in addition to providing information about the treatment options.

methodsParticipants (Study 1: N = 117; Study 2: N = 217) were put into two scenarios (Study 1: cruciate ligament rupture; Study 2: contraception), watched a consultation video and were randomized into one of three groups where they received additional information in the form of (a) narrative patient testimonials; (b) non-narrative decision strategies; and (c) an unrelated text (control group).

resultsParticipants who viewed the patient testimonials or decision strategies felt better prepared for a decision (Study 1: P < .001, DISCUSSION: Decision aids that explain preference-sensitivity and personal motives can be beneficial for improving people's feelings of being prepared and their perception of the decision-making process. To reach decision certainty and satisfaction, being well informed of one's options is particularly relevant. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and the design of DAs.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedPatient ParticipationDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHumansMotivationdecision aidspatient experiencespersonal motivespreference-sensitivityShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID33517579
PMCPMC8077165

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.