ArticlePloS one2023
"SDM:HOSP"- a generic model for hospital-based implementation of shared decision making.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- PeriOperative Quality Initiative consensus statement recommendations on the definitions, aims and delivery of shared decision-making for major surgery.Anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Shared Decision-Making for Determining Treatment Strategies in Low-Risk Thyroid Cancer: Protocol of a Multicenter Cluster-Randomized Trial (MAeSTro-SDM).Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Toward the Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Korean Clinical Practice: Study Protocol for a Foundational Research Project.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Effects of On-Site Supportive Communication Training in Oncology: A Multicenter Randomized Trial Assessing >3500 Patient Experiences.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Preferences for Decision-Making Style and Knowledge of and Attitudes To Recovery in Mental Health Professionals Working in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings in Routine Mental Health Practice: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study in the Danish Mental Health Services.Administration and policy in mental health · 2026Article
- From words to action: time for Australia to take shared decision making implementation seriously.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Article
- Deciding on the location for receiving parenteral antimicrobial therapy: development and preliminary testing of a patient decision aid.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Shared Decision-Making in Korean Healthcare: A Scoping Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Measuring healthcare professionals' perceptions of their ability to adopt shared decision making: Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Danish version of the IcanSDM questionnaire.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators of healthcare professionals in integrating shared decision-making in pancreatic cancer treatment: A network approach.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- "Developing the tool SDM:KOMPASS. Supporting shared decision making implementation processes".PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShared decision making (SDM) is a core element in the meeting between patient and healthcare professionals, but has proved difficult to implement and sustain in routine clinical practice. One of five Danish regions set out to succeed and to develop a model that ensures lasting SDM based on learnings from large-scale real-world implementation initiatives that go beyond the 'barriers' and 'facilitators' research approach. This paper describes this process and development of a generic implementation model, SDM:HOSP.
methodsThis project was carried out in the Region of Southern Denmark with five major hospital units. Based on existing theory of SDM, SDM implementation, implementation science and improvement methodology, a process of four phases were described; development of conceptual elements, field-testing, evaluation, and development of the final implementation model. The conceptual elements developed aimed to prepare leaders, train SDM teachers, teach clinicians to perform SDM, support development of patient decision aids, and support systematic planning, execution and follow-up. Field testing was done including continuous participant evaluations and an overall evaluation after one year.
resultsData from field testing and learnings from the implementation process, illustrated the need for a dynamic and easy adjustable model. The final SDM:HOSP model included four themes; i)Training of Leaders, ii) Training of Teachers and Clinicians, iii) Decision Helper, and iv) 'Process', each with details in three levels, 1) shared elements, 2) recommendations, and 3) local adaption.
conclusionsA feasible and acceptable model for implementation of SDM across hospitals and departments that accounts for different organizations and cultures was developed. The overall design can easily be adapted to other organizations and can be adjusted to fit the specific organization and culture. The results from the ongoing and overall evaluation suggest promising avenues for future work in further testing and research of the usability of the model.
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.