ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Patients' perspective on shared decision-making in urology: a prospective study at a university hospital.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shared decision-making among patients undergoing surgery for pelvic floor dysfunction: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- [Shared decision making-strengthening patient-physiciant relations through joint deliberation].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Do We Have Sufficient Evidence to Derive Innovative Approaches to Assessing Unmet Need, Delivering Education on Bladder and Bowel Continence Health, and Providing a Better Environment for Joint Decision-Making? ICI-RS 2024.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2025Article
- Heavy as a rock or light as dust: a comparison between the perceived workload for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Central European journal of urology · 2024Article
- Getting specific: participation preference in urooncological decision-making.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- Factors Influencing Participation in Shared Decision-Making Among Patients with Glaucoma in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Women's Involvement in Decision-Making and Associated Factors Among Women Who Underwent a Caesarean Section in Sidama Region, South Ethiopia: Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of women's health · 2023Article
- Different patients, different preferences: A multicenter assessment of patients' personality traits and anxiety in shared decision making.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- Shared Decision-Making: A Cross-Sectional Study Assessing Patients Awareness and Preferences in Saudi Arabia.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Comprehensive consent in urology using decision aids, leaflets, videos and newer technologies: empowering patient choice and shared decision-making.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
34338818What 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.