ArticlePloS one2022
Patients' and physicians' gender and perspective on shared decision-making: A cross-sectional study from Dubai.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Evaluation of a Shared Decision-Making Patient Decision Aid for Dental Clinic Care: A Mixed-Methods Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- A Qualitative Comparative Study of the Doctor-Patient Relationship Model and Decision-Making Style among Chinese and Japanese Doctors.Asian bioethics review · 2026Article
- Japanese hematologists' and oncologists' perceptions of patient preferences for shared decision-making.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- The associations of consultant sex on herding‑like prescribing behaviour: evidence from a web-based experiment with female primary care physicians in England.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- The magic of first impressions: Do facial displays on online platforms affect users' offline conversion rate?PloS one · 2026Article
- Gender dynamics in diagnostic imaging: Understanding patient preferences and enhancing radiologist preparedness for opposite-gender interactions.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2026Article
- Perspectives of clinicians and screening candidates on shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a qualitative study (PROSHADE study).BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Psychometric properties of the Danish SDM-Q-9 questionnaire for shared decision-making in patients with pelvic floor disorders and low back pain: item response theory modelling.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Investigating the learning value of early clinical exposure among undergraduate medical students in Dubai: a convergent mixed methods study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- A call to combat the burden of Allergic Contact Dermatitis among children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus using medical adhesives: a cross-sectional observational study.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2025Article
- A values-driven academic affiliation between a public medical school and a private healthcare provider: exploring the perceptions of key opinion leaders.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Investigating organizational resilience in a medicine and health sciences university in United Arab Emirates.PloS one · 2025Article
- Patient perspectives on physician competence: Validation of the CanMEDS framework.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Exploring gender disparity in medicine: perceptions of female physicians in Lebanon.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Exploring Patient Preferences Related to Shared Decision-Making in Chronic Disease Management.Cureus · 2024Article
- Assessing the Gap Between Women's Expectations and Perceptions of the Quality of Intrapartum Care in Jordan: A Two-Stage Study Using the SERVQUAL Model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Barriers and Stimulus in Shared Decision Making Among Aesthetic Dermatologists in China: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2024Article
- Shared decision-making in health care.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2023Article
- Patient-centred care attitudes and knowledge: a national study of BDS students in New Zealand.BMC medical education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelivering patient-centered care is a declared objective of many health delivery systems globally, especially in an era of value-based health care. It entails the active engagement of the patients in healthcare decisions related to their health, also known as shared decision making (SDM). Little is known about the role of gender in shaping the perspective of patients on their opportunity for engaging in SDM in the Arabian Gulf Region. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of gender in shaping patients' perspectives toward their opportunity for SDM in Dubai, UAE.
methodsThis study utilized a cross-sectional survey consisting of sociodemographic questions and the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). A total of 50 physicians (25 females and 25 males), practicing at a large private healthcare delivery network in Dubai, were recruited using convenience sampling. Ten patients of every recruited physician (5 male and 5 female) were surveyed (i.e., a total of 500 patients). Statistical analysis assessed the differences in patients' perceptions of physician SDM attitude scores by physicians' and patients' gender using independent t-test, ANOVA-test, and Chi-square analyses.
findingsA total of 50 physicians and 500 patients (250 male patients and 250 female patients) participated in this study. The odd of patients agreement was significantly lower for male physicians, compared to their female counterparts, on the following elements of SDM: the doctor precisely explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.34-0.88, p = 0.012); the doctor helping them understand the information (OR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.23-0.97, p = 0.038), the doctor asking about preferred treatment option (OR = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.35-0.77, p = 0.001), and the doctor thoroughly weighting the different treatment options (OR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.41-0.90, p = 0.013). No significant associations were observed between patients' gender and their perception of their opportunity for SDM. Likewise, no significant associations were observed between the same or different physician-patient gender and patients' perception of physicians' SDM attitudes. Statistically significant associations were observed between physician-patient gender and preferred treatment option for patients (p = 0.012).
conclusionStudy findings suggest that while there were no differences in patients' perspective on SDM by the gender of patients, significant differences were observed by the gender of physicians. Female physicians, compared to their male counterparts, were more engaged in SDM, with both male and female patients. Male physician-female patient dyad received the lowest scores on SDM. This could be explained by the cultural, social, and religious sensitivities that infiltrate the physician-patient relationship in the Arab contexts. Despite the multi-cultural nature of the country, some female patients may still experience some discomfort in opening up and in discussion preferences with male physicians. For physicians, striking the right balance between assertiveness and SDM is necessary within the cultural context, especially among male providers. Offering targeted learning and development programs on the importance and practice of SDM is also necessary to ensure equitable opportunity for engagement in SDM for all patients irrespective of the gender of their provider.
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.