ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023
The factors affecting implementing shared decision-making in clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey of clinical research coordinators' perceptions in Japan.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shared Decision Making and Advance Care Planning in the Context of Promoting Home Medical Care in Japan: A Narrative Review.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2026Review
- Online training for Japanese healthcare professionals in the development and use of patient decision aids to facilitate shared decision-making: An acceptability study.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- In their words: Experience of decision-making in adolescents with cancer - a qualitative meta-synthesis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Impact of smart healthcare-based behaviors of elderly patients with chronic diseases on physicians' behavioral adaptations.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Addressing Challenges to Enhance Clinical Research in Portugal: Insights from the OncoT3 Expert Group Delphi Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Shared decision-making implementation status among dermatologists engaging in medical esthetics: a cross-sectional study in China.Frontiers in medicine · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe shared decision-making model has been proposed as the ideal treatment decision-making process in medical encounters. However, the decision to participate in clinical trials rarely involves shared decision-making. In this study, we investigated the perceptions of Japanese clinical research coordinators who routinely support the informed consent process.
methodsThis study aimed to (1) identify clinical research coordinators' perceptions of the current status of shared decision-making implementation and its influencing factors, and (2) obtain suggestions to enhance the shared decision-making process in clinical trials. A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a web questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned behaviour. Invitations were sent to 1087 Japanese medical institutions, and responses from the participants were captured via the web. The shared decision-making process in clinical trials was defined according to the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire for Doctors. The effect of the attitudes toward shared decision-making, clinical research coordinators' subjective norms towards its implementation, perceived barriers to autonomous decision-making, and the number of difficult steps in the shared decision-making process on the shared decision-making current status as the shared decision-making intention was assessed by multiple regression analysis.
resultsIn total, 373 clinical research coordinators responded to the questionnaire. Many believed that they were already implementing shared decision-making. Attitudes toward shared decision-making (t = 3.400, p < .001), clinical research coordinators' subjective norms towards its implementation (t = 2.239, p = .026), perceived barriers to autonomous decision-making (t = 3.957, p < .001), and the number of difficult steps in the shared decision-making process (t = 3.317, p = .001) were found to significantly influence current status (Adjusted R
conclusionsClinical research coordinators might positively perceive shared decision-making based on normative beliefs without sufficient knowledge of it. Therefore, providing appropriate training on shared decision-making to clinical research coordinators and increasing awareness among stakeholders could enable its improvement.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.