Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36361109›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Patient Involvement in Shared Decision-Making: Do Patients Rate Physicians and Nurses Differently?

Maura Galletta, Maria Francesca Piazza, Stefania Luisa Meloni, Elsa Chessa, Ilenia Piras, Judith E Arnetz, Ernesto D'Aloja

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. User Involvement in Transition Care in Virtual 4-Party Meetings: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  9. Living With Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Insights From an Arts-Based Study.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

7 authors.

Maura GallettaDepartment of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, 09100 Cagliari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0124-4248
Maria Francesca PiazzaLiguria Health Authority (A.Li.Sa.), 16121 Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2404-3609
Stefania Luisa MeloniDepartment of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, 09100 Cagliari, Italy.
Elsa ChessaIntensive Care Unit, Binaghi Hospital, ASL Cagliari, 09100 Cagliari, Italy.
Ilenia PirasEmergency Department, SS. Trinità Hospital, ASL Cagliari, 09100 Cagliari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1656-2273
Judith E ArnetzDepartment of Family Medicine, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, MI 48824, USA.
Ernesto D'AlojaDepartment of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, 09100 Cagliari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4456-6252

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision-making implies that patients and healthcare professionals make decisions together about clinical exams, available treatments, choice of options, and the benefit or downside of every choice. Patients involved in the shared decision-making process are more compliant with treatments and have a reduced risk of complications related to the pathology. In Italy, patient involvement in caring processes is still barely investigated.

aimTo investigate patients' perceptions about shared decision-making with physicians and nurses, respectively, and to examine the relationship between shared decision-making and patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care/treatment.

methodsThe study was performed between March and June 2019 in two wards of one Italian hospital. A questionnaire was administered to inpatients at the time of admission and again at discharge, including demographic information and measurement scales regarding patient involvement in shared decision-making, patient satisfaction, and perceived quality of treatment/care.

resultsA total of 151 out of 301 patients completed questionnaires at both admission and discharge. Patients' scores for shared decision-making (information, patient needs, treatment planning) were significantly different for physicians and nurses. At both admission and discharge, patients rated shared decision-making significantly higher for physicians compared to nurses, while there were no differences in their satisfaction ratings. Patient ratings of physicians did not change from admission (information: mean (M) = 3.50, standard deviation (SD) = 0.81; patient need: M = 3.05, SD = 1.05; treatment planning: M = 2.75, SD = 1.23) to discharge (information: M = 3.50, SD = 0.79; patient need: M = 3.17, SD = 1.02; treatment planning: M = 2.66, SD = 1.23) ( DISCUSSION: Nurses should be sensitized to involving patients in the decision-making process, especially upon hospital admission. Specific training about effective communication techniques can be implemented to manage relationships with patients in different caring situations. Practical implications and future directions are discussed.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationPhysiciansDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedHumansPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient Relationsnursespatient involvementpatient satisfactionperceived quality of carephysiciansshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID36361109
PMCPMC9656720

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.