ArticleGalen medical journal2021
Developing a Shared Decision-Making Model for Diabetic Patients: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Galen medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Diabetes Self-Management: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Insights of shared decision-making and personalized treatment in orthopedics - A qualitative systematic review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient participation in healthcare leads to increased satisfaction and trust, reduction of anxiety, and a better understanding of patients' needs. The components of shared decision-making (SDM) are well documented in the literature. The purpose of this study was to design an SDM model for diabetic patients. Materials and Methods: This qualitative content analysis study was performed in three steps. First, a descriptive comparative study was conducted using the widely-used George Brady method. Next, the perceptions of participants (both physicians and patients) were collected via interview and in focus group discussions (FGDs). Content analysis was used to categorize the comments made by participants. In the final step, the model of SDM for diabetic patients was designed based on expert panel discussions. Results: Twelve components were extracted from the comparative study. Two themes and six sub-themes were extracted from data resulting from physicians' interviews, and two themes and ten sub-themes were extracted from data resulting from the FGDs involving patients. The model of SDM for diabetic patients was designed in light of three concepts; practitioners' behavior, participatory decision-making process, and patients' autonomy. Conclusion: This model was valuable because it recognizes the process of SDM in the context of Iran. The model's main purpose was to help choose optimum strategies for the care of diabetic patients within the health sector.
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.