Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34762683›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Practitioners' views on shared decision-making implementation: A qualitative study.

Anshu Ankolekar, Karina Dahl Steffensen, Karina Olling, Andre Dekker, Leonard Wee, Cheryl Roumen, Hajar Hasannejadasl, Rianne Fijten

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 · 2022
    Article
  13. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anshu AnkolekarDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7681-1254
Karina Dahl SteffensenCenter for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital-University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9217-3907
Karina OllingCenter for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital-University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.
Andre DekkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Leonard WeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1612-9055
Cheryl RoumenDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2941-4632
Hajar HasannejadaslDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Rianne FijtenDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLLillebaelt Hospital · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision Making, SharedQualitative ResearchAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelDecision Support TechniquesDenmarkFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPatient Preference

Identifiers

PMID34762683
PMCPMC8584754
OpenAlexW3213481566

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.