ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2022
Shared decision-making in general practice from a patient perspective. A cross-sectional survey.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shared Decision-Making in Dialysis Modality Selection Among Adults with Advanced Kidney Disease in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- General Practitioners' Perceptions of Patient Involvement-An Interview Study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Shared decision making applied to self-management program for hypertensive patients: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2024Article
- How should a general practitioner say no to a patient?Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2023Article
- Shared Decision Making and Its Association with Antiviral Therapy Adherence in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B: Single-Center Cross-Sectional Analysis.MDM policy & practiceArticle
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
objectivesWe aimed to assess patient involvement in terms of shared decision-making in general practice from the perspectives of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) (or both).
designA cross-sectional survey using the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) ranging from 0 to 5 (best). SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Patients diagnosed with either T2DM and/or COPD were asked to focus on their most recent consultation in general practice concerning their T2DM or lung disease. Responders were approached through the Danish Diabetes Association and Danish Lung Association.
resultsThe sample included 468 responders. Mean scores for the total sample were between 3.3 and 4.2. The overall mean score for all items was 3.7. The highest overall mean score was for patients with T2DM, whereas the lowest overall mean score was for patients having both T2DM and COPD. Furthermore, we observed a slightly lower overall mean score for women compared to men and for those younger than 65 years compared to those aged 65 years or older.
conclusionOverall, patients are involved in shared decision-making in general practice Minor nuances were found because patients with COPD were less involved in shared decision-making compared to patients with T2DM. Similarly, younger patients and women were less involved than older patients and men.
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.