Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37214495›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2023

Development, implementation and evaluation of patient decision aids supporting shared decision making in women with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Mette Hæe, Christian Nielsen Wulff, Lars Fokdal, Karina Olling, Karina Mølgaard Jensen, Dorte Gilså Hansen, Anja Ør Knudsen, Birthe Lemley, Dorte Blou, Hanne Büchmann and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mette HæeDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, DK- 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.
Christian Nielsen WulffDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, DK- 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.
Lars FokdalDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, DK- 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.
Karina OllingCentre for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Beridderbakken 4, DK-7100 Vejle, Denmark.
Karina Mølgaard JensenCentre for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Beridderbakken 4, DK-7100 Vejle, Denmark.
Dorte Gilså HansenCentre for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Beridderbakken 4, DK-7100 Vejle, Denmark.
Anja Ør KnudsenDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Odense University Hospital, J. B. Winsløws Vej 4, DK-5000 Odense, Denmark.
Birthe LemleyPatient Representative.
Dorte BlouPatient Representative.
Hanne BüchmannPatient Representative.
Karina Dahl SteffensenCentre for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Beridderbakken 4, DK-7100 Vejle, Denmark.
Aarhus University Hospital · DKLillebaelt Hospital · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKOdense University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Shared decision making (SDM) and use of patient decision aids (PtDAs) are key components in patient-centered care in relapsed ovarian cancer. This paper describes the development and implementation process of PtDAs into a clinical routine in three departments. Methods: Two PtDAs were developed in collaboration between patients and clinicians. Acceptability and usability of the PtDAs were tested on clinicians and patients using items from the internationally validated questionnaire "Preparation for Decision Making Scale". Results: Ten patients and 15 clinicians participated in the study. Most patients indicated that PtDAs would be helpful as preparation for the decision-making process with the clinicians. Ten (75%) of the clinicians responded that the PtDAs helped the patients to understand the benefits and disadvantages of each treatment option. Generally, the clinicians indicated that they would use SDM if they had a PtDA tailored to the clinical situation. Conclusions: Two PtDAs were systematically developed, tested, and implemented thereby supporting an SDM intervention. The PtDAs are still in use at the participating departments. Innovation: This study was successful in reusing a generic template for a patient decision aid (PtDA) developed at one institution and implemented in two other institutions. This was guided by a well-described systematic development process for PtDAs.

Indexed as

Cancer careImplementationPatient decision aidPatient involvementShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID37214495
PMCPMC10194391
OpenAlexW4313204073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.