Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36476612›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022

Patient-provider communication while using a clinical decision support tool: explaining satisfaction with shared decision making for mammography screening.

Yan Liu, Rachel Kornfield, Ellie Fan Yang, Elizabeth Burnside, Jon Keevil, Dhavan V Shah

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Improving cancer clinical trial enrollment and patient understanding using TrialTalk, a structured communication method: a pilot randomized controlled trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors.

Yan LiuSchool of Journalism and Communication, Shanghai University, 149 Yanchang Drive, 1006 Xingjian Building, Shanghai, 200072, China. yliu680@shu.edu.cn.
Rachel KornfieldDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Ellie Fan YangSchool of Communication and Mass Media, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO, 64468, USA.
Elizabeth BurnsideSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53705, USA.
Jon KeevilEBSCO Industries, Madison, WI, 53726, USA.
Dhavan V ShahSchool of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.

Funding

UW COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER SUPPORTP30CA014520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI AMY TRENTHAM-DIETZ · 1985 to 2026
$142.6M
University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR002373 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ELIZABETH S BURNSIDE, Allan R. Brasier · 2017 to 2026
$75.9M
Mentoring And Research In Patient-Oriented Breast Cancer DiagnosisK24CA194251 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI BURNSIDE, ELIZABETH S · 2015 to 2019
$963k
NCATS NIH HHS 9 U54 TR000021NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002373NCI NIH HHS K24 CA194251NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014520
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical decision aids may support shared decision-making for screening mammography. To inform shared decision-making between patients and their providers, this study examines how patterns of using an EHR-integrated decision aid and accompanying verbal patient-provider communication predict decision-making satisfaction.

methodsFor 51 patient visits during which a mammography decision aid was used, linguistic characteristics of patient-provider verbal communication were extracted from transcribed audio recordings and system logs automatically captured uses of the decision aid. Surveys assessed patients' post-visit decisional satisfaction and its subcomponents. Linear mixed effects models assessed how patients' satisfaction with decision making was related to patterns of verbal communication and navigation of the decision aid.

resultsThe results indicate that providers' use of quantitative language during the encounter was positively associated with patients' overall satisfaction, feeling informed, and values clarity. Patients' question-asking was negatively associated with overall satisfaction, values clarity, and certainty perception. Where system use data indicated the dyad had cycled through the decision-making process more than once ("looping" back through pages of the decision aid), patients reported improved satisfaction with shared decision making and all subcomponents. Overall satisfaction, perceived support, certainty, and perceived effectiveness of decision-making were lowest when a high number of navigating clicks occurred absent "looping."

conclusionsLinguistic features of patient-provider communication and system use data of a decision aid predict patients' satisfaction with shared decision making. Our findings have implications for the design of decision aid tools and clinician training to support more effective shared decision-making for screening mammography.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalCommunicationEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyPatient SatisfactionBreast cancer screeningClinical decision support toolComputational text analysisDecisional satisfactionShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID36476612
PMCPMC9730626

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.