ArticlePloS one2021
Practitioners' views on shared decision-making implementation: A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Pooled it
- Factors Influencing Nurses' Intention and Behavior in Shared Decision-Making: A Cross-Sectional Study.The journal of nursing research : JNR · 2026Article
- Facilitators of and Barriers to Implementation of a Tablet-Based Digital Health Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Qualitative Pragmatic Implementation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Whose voice counts? Family caregivers' roles in shared decision making for chronic illness in urban South Korea: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Psychiatric nurses' understandings and attitudes toward the participation of patients with mental disorders in shared decision-making: a phenomenological study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Improving lung cancer decision-making using a conversation tool (iDECIDE): a stepped wedge pragmatic clinical trial.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- HIV Prevention and Sexual Health Conversations Among Women in Ending the HIV Epidemic Priority Communities: A Qualitative Exploration of Experiences and Preferences.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
- "Developing the tool SDM:KOMPASS. Supporting shared decision making implementation processes".PloS one · 2024Article
- Identifying Womens' Needs in Making a Treatment Decision for Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Qualitative Study.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Learning from the implementation of clinical empathy training: an explorative qualitative study in search of the barriers and facilitators.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Cascade of decisions meet personal preferences in sciatica treatment decisions.BMJ open quality · 2022Article
- Treatment and secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Development of a Patient Decision Aid to Support Shared Decision Making for Patients with Recurrent High-Grade Glioma.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionShared decision-making (SDM) refers to the collaboration between patients and their healthcare providers to make clinical decisions based on evidence and patient preferences, often supported by patient decision aids (PDAs). This study explored practitioner experiences of SDM in a context where SDM has been successfully implemented. Specifically, we focused on practitioners' perceptions of SDM as a paradigm, factors influencing implementation success, and outcomes.
methodsWe used a qualitative approach to examine the experiences and perceptions of 10 Danish practitioners at a cancer hospital experienced in SDM implementation. A semi-structured interview format was used and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data was analyzed through thematic analysis.
resultsPrior to SDM implementation, participants had a range of attitudes from skeptical to receptive. Those with more direct long-term contact with patients (such as nurses) were more positive about the need for SDM. We identified four main factors that influenced SDM implementation success: raising awareness of SDM behaviors among clinicians through concrete measurements, supporting the formation of new habits through reinforcement mechanisms, increasing the flexibility of PDA delivery, and strong leadership. According to our participants, these factors were instrumental in overcoming initial skepticism and solidifying new SDM behaviors. Improvements to the clinical process were reported. Sustaining and transferring the knowledge gained to other contexts will require adapting measurement tools.
conclusionsApplying SDM in clinical practice represents a major shift in mindset for clinicians. Designing SDM initiatives with an understanding of the underlying behavioral mechanisms may increase the probability of successful and sustained implementation.
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.