Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34338818›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2021

Patients' perspective on shared decision-making in urology: a prospective study at a university hospital.

Britta Grüne, Anja K Köther, Björn Büdenbender, Maurice S Michel, Maximilian C Kriegmair, Georg W Alpers

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. When attitudes and beliefs get in the way of shared decision-making: A mediation analysis of participation preference.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Patient participation in treatment decision-making of prostate cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

6 authors.

Britta GrüneDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. britta.gruene@umm.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1593-217X
Anja K KötherDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Björn BüdenbenderDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Maurice S MichelDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Maximilian C KriegmairDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Georg W AlpersDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Krebshilfe 7011323
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to determine the degree of shared decision-making (SDM) from urological patients' perspective and to identify possible predictors.

methodsOverall, 469 urological patients of a university outpatient clinic were recruited for this prospective study. Before a medical consultation, clinical and sociodemographic information, and patients' emotional distress were assessed by questionnaires. After the consultation, patients completed the SDM-Questionnaire-9 (SDM-Q-9). The SDM-Q-9 scores of relevant subgroups were compared. Logistic regression was used to identify patients at risk for experiencing low involvement (SDM-Q-9 total score ≤ 66) in SDM.

resultsData from 372 patients were available for statistical analyses. The SDM-Q-9 mean total score was 77.8 ± 20.6. The majority of patients (n = 271, 73%) experienced a high degree of involvement (SDM-Q-9 total score > 66). The mean score per SDM-Q-9 item was in the upper range (3.9 ± 1.4 out of 5). The most poorly rated item was "My doctor wanted to know how I want to be involved in decision-making" (3.5 ± 1.6). Immigration status (OR 3.7, p = 0.049), and nonscheduled hospital registration (OR 2.1, p = 0.047) were significant predictors for less perceived involvement. Comorbidity, oncological status, and emotional distress did not significantly predict perceived participation.

conclusionIn a university hospital setting, most urological patients feel adequately involved in SDM. Nevertheless, urologists should routinely ask for patients' participation preference. Patients without a scheduled appointment and patients who immigrated may need more support to feel involved in SDM.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthDecision Making, SharedPatient ParticipationPatient PreferenceFemaleHospitals, UniversityHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesUrologic DiseasesInvolvementPatient-centered careQuestionnaireShared decision-making

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.