ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review.
Review in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital Decision Aids to Support Decision-Making in Palliative and End-of-Life Dementia Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Motherhood choice in multiple sclerosis (MoMS) - Pilot trial of web-based decision support.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Case Study Analysis of a Decision Coaching Intervention for Young Adults with Early Psychosis.Community mental health journal · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on decision-making about lung cancer screening participation: a cross-sectional study in Flanders.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Determinants of practice for decision coaching in Germany: a qualitative exploration of decision coaches' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Use of SEM-PLS analysis to predict sports injuries in professional football players through warehouse technology data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development and preliminary evaluation of a decision coach training module for nurses in Norway.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Article
- Decision support for breast cancer screening decisions: A single case pre-/post-test study.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2024Article
- Article
- A Comparison between Perceptions of Psychiatric Outpatients and Psychiatrists Regarding Benzodiazepine Use and Decision Making for Its Discontinuation: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Development and Piloting of a Web-Based Tool to Teach Relative and Absolute Risk Reductions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Implementing an Asthma Patient Decision Aid in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study of Clinicians' and Patients' Perspectives on Its Sustainability.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 11 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a trained healthcare provider to help people prepare to actively participate in making healthcare decisions. This study aimed to understand how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions.
methodsWe followed the realist review methodology for this study. This study was built on a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness of decision coaching interventions for people facing healthcare decisions. It involved six iterative steps: (1) develop the initial program theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) select, appraise, and prioritize studies; (4) extract and organize data; (5) synthesize evidence; and (6) consult stakeholders and draw conclusions.
resultsWe developed an initial program theory based on decision coaching theories and stakeholder feedback. Of the 2594 citations screened, we prioritized 27 papers for synthesis based on their relevance rating. To refine the program theory, we identified 12 context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Essential mechanisms for decision coaching to be initiated include decision coaches', patients', and clinicians' commitments to patients' involvement in decision making and decision coaches' knowledge and skills (four CMOs). CMOs during decision coaching are related to the patient (i.e., willing to confide, perceiving their decisional needs are recognized, acquiring knowledge, feeling supported), and the patient-decision coach interaction (i.e., exchanging information, sharing a common understanding of patient's values) (five CMOs). After decision coaching, the patient's progress in making or implementing a values-based preferred decision can be facilitated by the decision coach's advocacy for the patient, and the patient's deliberation upon options (two CMOs). Leadership support enables decision coaches to have access to essential resources to fulfill their role (one CMOs). DISCUSSION: In the refined program theory, decision coaching works when there is strong leadership support and commitment from decision coaches, clinicians, and patients. Decision coaches need to be capable in coaching, encourage patients' participation, build a trusting relationship with patients, and act as a liaison between patients and clinicians to facilitate patients' progress in making or implementing an informed values-based preferred option. More empirical studies, especially qualitative and process evaluation studies, are needed to further refine the program theory.
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.