Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35652372›Full record

ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

Leveraging the timing and frequency of patient decision aids in longitudinal shared decision-making: A narrative review and applied model.

Lara R LoBrutto, Gemmae Fix, Renda S Wiener, Amy M Linsky

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Leveraging the timing and frequency of patient decision aids in longitudinal shared decision-making: A narrative review and applied model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Review
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

4 authors.

Lara R LoBruttoCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston & VA Bedford Healthcare Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8805-2125
Gemmae FixCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston & VA Bedford Healthcare Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6055-4177
Renda S WienerCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston & VA Bedford Healthcare Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7712-2135
Amy M LinskyCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston & VA Bedford Healthcare Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8090-3431

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionShared decision-making (SDM) is intended to increase patient-centredness of medical decision-making for patients with acute and chronic conditions. Concurrently, patient decision aids (PtDAs) can supplement SDM by providing information to guide communication between patients and healthcare providers. Because of the prevalence of chronic conditions, where decisions may be extended or recurring, we sought to explore how effectively these tools have been leveraged in this context.

methodsWe conducted a narrative review of the literature on both SDM and PtDAs, searching PubMed and Boston University's library database search tool for English-language articles published from January 2005 until March 2021. Additional search terms focused on temporality. Drawing from our findings, we developed a combined framework to highlight areas for future research using the discussion of end-of-life decisions as an exemplar to illustrate its relevance to chronic care contexts.

resultsAfter screening 57 articles, we identified 25 articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria on SDM, PtDA use and temporality for chronic care. The literature on SDM highlighted time outside of the medical visit and opportunity to include outside decision partners as important elements of the process. PtDAs were commonly evaluated for process-related and proximal outcomes, but less often for distal outcomes. Early evidence points to the value of comparative outcome evaluation based on the timing of PtDA distribution.

conclusionOur review of the literature on SDM and PtDAs reveals less attention to the timing of PtDAs relative to that of SDM. We highlight the need for further study of timing in PtDA use to improve longitudinal SDM for chronic care. The model that we propose in our discussion provides a starting point for future research on PtDA efficacy. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Five patient consultants provided input and feedback on the development and utility of our model.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDecision Making, SharedDecision Support TechniquesPatient ParticipationDecision MakingHumansdecision aidsdecision-makingpatient-centred careshared

Identifiers

PMID35652372
PMCPMC9327840

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.