ArticleSleep medicine: X2022
Shared decision making: A novel approach to personalized treatment in obstructive sleep apnea.
Article in Sleep medicine: X, 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.
- The Effect of Informational Podcasts on Shared Decision-Making, Anxiety, and Patient Satisfaction in Hospital Visits: Intervention Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Consensus Statements Among European Sleep Surgery Experts on Tongue, Hypopharynx, and Supraglottis Associated with Snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Part 1: Evaluation and Decision Making.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The Future of Telemedicine for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Treatment: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The role of neuromuscular function in sleep apnea pathogenesis and management: A consensus of experts.Frontiers in sleep · 2023Review
- Patient-Centered Therapy for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study objectives: i) To describe a novel approach of phenotyping by shared decision making (SDM) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) discharge consultations ii) to describe correlation between patient and observer based evaluations of SDM and iii) to describe treatment adherence. Methods: Consecutive patients referred to the otorhinolaryngology department at Akershus University Hospital with suspected OSA between 2015 and 2016 participated. Patients with body mass index >30 were oversampled. Four male communication-trained doctors aged from 30 to 60 years participated. SDM was evaluated by modified content analysis and by the CollaboRATE self-report questionnaire and the "Observer OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5]" rating scale. Positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment adherence and weight reduction was assessed by interview at six year follow-up. Results: Eighteen consultations were video filmed. The content analysis revealed that the patient perspectives only briefly were explored. PAP was chosen by 17 of 18 patients. Median CollaboRATE questionnaire score was 29 (26, 30). Mean OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5] score was 65.6 (SD 6.6, range 55-80). The correlation between SDM assessed by CollaboRATE self-report and by the "Observer OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5]" rating scale was low (Pearson's r = 0.09). At follow up, 11 patients (64.7%) were PAP adherent and no one achieved 10% weight loss. Conclusions: Despite a high degree of SDM compared to studies of non-OSA populations, the sub-optimal exploration of the patient perspective by communication-trained doctors precluded identification of patients willing to cope actively. SDM assessed by self-report and by a rating scale may represent two different constructs. PAP adherence was good.
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.