Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35613791›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

How are patient-related characteristics associated with shared decision-making about treatment? A scoping review of quantitative studies.

Sascha M Keij, Joyce E de Boer, Anne M Stiggelbout, Wändi Bruine de Bruin, Ellen Peters, Saïda Moaddine, Marleen Kunneman, Arwen H Pieterse

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Confucian Familism and Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Cancers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  20. 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.

Sascha M KeijDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Joyce E de BoerDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Anne M StiggelboutDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Wändi Bruine de BruinSchaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, Dornsife Department of Psychology, and Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Ellen PetersCenter for Science Communication Research, School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA.
Saïda MoaddineDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Marleen KunnemanDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Arwen H PieterseDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands pieterse@lumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-6395-0052

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify what patient-related characteristics have been reported to be associated with the occurrence of shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment.

designScoping review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed articles in English or Dutch reporting on associations between patient-related characteristics and the occurrence of SDM for actual treatment decisions. INFORMATION SOURCES: COCHRANE Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published until 25 March 2019.

resultsThe search yielded 5289 hits of which 53 were retained. Multiple categories of patient characteristics were identified: (1) sociodemographic characteristics (eg, gender), (2) general health and clinical characteristics (eg, symptom severity), (3) psychological characteristics and coping with illness (eg, self-efficacy) and (4) SDM style or preference. Many characteristics showed no association or unclear relationships with SDM occurrence. For example, for female gender positive, negative and, most frequently, non-significant associations were seen.

conclusionsA large variety of patient-related characteristics have been studied, but for many the association with SDM occurrence remains unclear. The results will caution often-made assumptions about associations and provide an important step to target effective interventions to foster SDM with all patients.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient ParticipationAdaptation, PsychologicalDecision Making, SharedFemaleHumansSelf EfficacyMEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAININGMEDICAL ETHICSQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35613791
PMCPMC9174801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.