Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33771137›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

Shared decision making and patients satisfaction with strabismus care-a pilot study.

Ala Paduca, Oleg Arnaut, Eugeniu Beschieru, Per Olof Lundmark, Jan Richard Bruenech

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Health Screening: an Umbrella Review Across Conditions.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Support for Older People With Vision Impairment: A Rapid Realist Review.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ala PaducaFaculty of Health and Social Science, South Eastern University Norway, Kongsberg, Norway. paducaa@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9879-8211
Oleg ArnautDepartment of Human Physiology and Biophysics, Universitatea de Stat de Medicina si Farmacie "Nicolae Testemitanu", Chişinău, Republic of Moldova.
Eugeniu BeschieruDepartment of Surgery No.1 "N. Anestiadi", Universitatea de Stat de Medicina si Farmacie "Nicolae Testemitanu", Chişinău, Republic of Moldova.
Per Olof LundmarkFaculty of Health and Social Science, South Eastern University Norway, Kongsberg, Norway.
Jan Richard BruenechFaculty of Health and Social Science, South Eastern University Norway, Kongsberg, Norway.
University of South-Eastern Norway · NONicolae Testemițanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy · MD

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrabismus is a complex disease that has various treatment approaches each with its own advantages and drawbacks. In this context, shared decisions making (SDM) is a communication process with the provider sharing all the relevant treatment alternatives, all the benefits, and risks of each procedure, while the patient shares all the preferences and values regarding his/her choices. In that way, SDM is a bidirectional process that goes beyond the typical informed consent. Therefore, it is known a little of the extent to which SDM influences the satisfaction with the treatment outcome along with strabismus patients. To study this correlation, an SDM-Q-9 questionnaire was provided within surgical consultations where treatment decisions were made; the SDM-Q-9 aims to assess the relationship between the post-operative patient's satisfaction and their SMD score.

methodsThe study is considered a prospective observational pilot study. Eligible patients were adult patients diagnosed with strabismus, who had multiple treatment options, were given at the right of choice without being driven into a physician's preference. Ninety-three strabismus patients were asked to fill out the SDM-Q-9 questionnaire related to their perception of SDM during the entire period of strabismus treatment. After the treatment, patients were asked to rate their satisfaction level with the surgical outcome as excellent, good, fair, and poor. Descriptive statistics and the linear regression statistical tests (Spearman, Mann Whitney U, and Kriskal-Wallis) were used as analysis tools.

resultsThe average age of the participants was 24, where 50.6% were women. The mean SDM-Q-9 score among patients was 32 (IQR = 3). The postoperative patient satisfaction was rated as being excellent by 16 (17.2%) patients, good by 38 (40.9%), fair by 32 (34.4%), and poor by 7 patients (7.5%). Data analysis by linear regression statistical tests showed a positive correlation between the SDM-Q-9 score and the patient satisfaction related to the surgery outcome (B = 0.005, p < 0.001). Criteria in assessing patients' satisfaction were age, gender, and strabismus type. A positive correlation between SDM and real satisfaction (r = 0.834, p < 0.01) was found with age, and no significant relationship was found while taking into consideration the responder's gender and the strabismus type.

conclusionsAssessing patient satisfaction after choosing a treatment for strabismus method helped us evaluate the gaps in constructive dialogue that would lead to a positive outcome for both patient and clinician. The correlation between the SDM process and the patients' satisfaction with surgery outcome, adjusted by age, has been established. These findings can serve as a springboard to further communicative improvements related to the SDM process and between patients and physicians, thereby consequently leading to patients' satisfaction raise in strabismus care. The study underlines the importance of further analysis and validation of on-ground interactions among the adolescent and adult patients and the clinicians across the strabismus management trajectory. A multicentral study and its validation will follow.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionStrabismusAdolescentAdultDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedFemaleHumansMalePatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesAdult strabismusPatient-centered carePatient satisfactionPhysician–patient communicationShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID33771137
PMCPMC7995717
OpenAlexW3137943144

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.