Observational studyBMJ open2022
Do consultants do what they say they do? Observational study of the extent to which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- How is shared decision making used in the treatment of patients with liver disease? a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Impact of a training program on gastroenterology health care professionals' patient-centered shared decision-making: a pilot study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- A guideline-based preference elicitation tool to enhance shared decision-making in supervised exercise therapy for patients with intermittent claudication: a process evaluation.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Maternity care professionals' views on good counselling for prenatal anomaly screening: a qualitative inquiry.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Shared Decision-Making (SDM) for Female SUI: Current Practice in Three Western Countries.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Article
- The views of women and their physicians on decision-making for stress urinary incontinence.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Attention to the Values, Wishes and Needs of Patients With Advanced Cancer by Hospital Clinicians, an Exploratory Qualitative Study.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2025Article
- Shared Decision-Making in Severe Aortic Stenosis: Experiences and Needs of Older Patients.The Journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2025Article
- Barriers to Implementing Shared Decision-Making in Postgraduate Medical Education: The Role of Disease-Centered Beliefs.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
- Autonomy support in prenatal consultation: A quantitative observation study in maternity care.European journal of midwifery · 2025Article
- Public Valuations of Managing Compromised Molars: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of dental research · 2025Article
- Associations between physicians' SDM behaviour and participation of older patients and family members in triadic decision-making: An observational study.PEC innovation · 2024Article
- A realist review of medication optimisation of community dwelling service users with serious mental illness.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Review
- Integrating training in evidence-based medicine and shared decision-making: a qualitative study of junior doctors and consultants.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Shared decision-making performance of general practice residents: an observational study combining observer, resident, and patient perspectives.Family practice · 2024Observational
- Shared decision-making between paediatric haematologists, children with sickle cell disease and their parents: an exploratory study.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Observational
- Observational
- Identifying Womens' Needs in Making a Treatment Decision for Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Qualitative Study.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Shared decision making and medication adherence in patients with COPD and/or asthma: the ANANAS study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess whether consultants do what they say they do in reaching decisions with their patients.
designCross-sectional analysis of hospital outpatient encounters, comparing consultants' self-reported usual decision-making style to their actual observed decision-making behaviour in video-recorded encounters.
settingLarge secondary care teaching hospital in the Netherlands.
participants41 consultants from 18 disciplines and 781 patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURE: With the Control Preference Scale, the self-reported usual decision-making style was assessed (paternalistic, informative or shared decision making). Two independent raters assessed decision-making behaviour for each decision using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION)
resultsConsultants reported their usual decision-making style as informative (n=11), shared (n=16) and paternalistic (n=14). Overall, patient involvement was low, with mean (SD) OPTION
conclusionsThe limited patient involvement that we observed was not associated with the consultants' self-reported usual decision-making style. Consultants appear to be unconsciously incompetent in shared decision making. This can hinder the transfer of this crucial communication skill to students and junior doctors.
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.