Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35662361›Full record

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

Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure-process-outcome model.

Changhai Tang, Anqi Wang, Jingjing Yan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Exploring Communication Dynamics Between Patients and Healthcare Providers in Oncology: A Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure-process-outcome model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Identification and synthesis of decision-making factors in vestibular schwannoma treatment.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Barriers to and Facilitators of Shared Decision-Making Implementation in Fertility Preservation for Patients With Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Shared Decision Making in Perinatal Care.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

3 authors.

Changhai TangSchool of Public Health, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, Shandong, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7727-9554
Anqi WangSchool of Public Health, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, Shandong, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7297-1234
Jingjing YanCollege of Philosophy, Law & Political Science, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0654-2543

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveShared decision-making (SDM) as a multicollaborative approach is vital for facilitating patient-centred care. Considering the limited clinical practice, we attempted to synthesize the motivations and resistances, and investigate their mutual relationships for advancing the implementation of SDM.

methodsA comprehensive systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed. 'Shared decision making' was searched as the mesh term through PubMed, Web of Science and EBSCO from 2000 to 2021, and the quality of literature was appraised using the QualSyst Tool. Motivations and resistances were categorized based on content analysis and the 'structure-process-outcome' model.

resultsFrom 8319 potential citations, 105 were included, comprising 53 qualitative studies (the average quality score is 0.92) and 52 quantitative studies (the average quality score is 0.95). A total of 42 categories of factors were identified into 11 themes and further grouped into three dimensions: structure, process and outcome. The structure dimension comprised six themes (71.43%), the process dimension contained four themes (11.01%) and the outcome dimension covered only one theme. Across all categories, decision-making time and patients' decision preparedness in the process dimension were the most reported, followed by physicians' communication skills and health care environment in the structure dimension. Analysis of implementation of SDM among various types of diseases showed that more influencing factors were extracted from chronic diseases and unspecified disease decisions.

conclusionsThe major determinants for the implementation of SDM are focused on the structural dimension, which challenges the health systems of both developed and low- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, we consider it important to understand more about the interactions among the factors to take integrated measures to address the problems and to ensure the effectiveness of implementing SDM. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders articulated their perspectives on the implementation of SDM actively, and these were adopted and analysed in this study. However, the above-mentioned individuals were not directly involved in the process of this study. Protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021259309).

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedHealth Services AccessibilityPatient-Centered CarePatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsCommunicationDecision MakingHumansMotivationOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareProfessional Practicemotivationpatient-centred careresistanceshared decision-makingstructure-process-outcome model

Identifiers

PMID35662361
PMCPMC9327808

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.