Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37612645›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023

Implementing shared decision-making interventions in breast cancer clinical practice: a scoping review.

Natalia Oprea, Vittoria Ardito, Oriana Ciani

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Concordance of patient- and clinician-reported outcomes of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. The Role of Evidence-Based Information in Shared Decision-Making for Breast Reconstruction: Insights from the GRETA-V2 Decision Aid.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Development of Systemic Interventions to Decrease Breast Cancer Risk: A Group Concept Mapping Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

Natalia OpreaCentre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CeRGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, 20136, Italy. natalia.oprea@sdabocconi.it.
Vittoria ArditoCentre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CeRGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, 20136, Italy.
Oriana CianiCentre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CeRGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, 20136, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process whereby patients and clinicians jointly deliberate on the best treatment option that takes into account patients' preferences and values. In breast cancer care, different treatment options have become available to patients in the last decade. Various interventions, including patient decision aids (PtDAs), have been designed to promote SDM in this disease area. This study aimed at investigating the factors that influence the successful adoption and implementation of SDM interventions in real-world healthcare delivery settings.

methodsA scoping review of scientific and grey literature was conducted for the period 2006-2021 to analyse the support for SDM interventions and their adoption in breast cancer clinical practice. The interpretation of findings was based on the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice.

resultsOverall, 19 studies were included for data synthesis, with more than 70% published since 2017. The availability of SDM tools does not automatically translate into their actual use in clinical settings. Factors related to users' co-creation, the clinical team's attitude and knowledge, organisational support and regulatory provisions facilitate the adoption of SDM interventions. However, overlooking aspects such as the re-organisation of care pathways, patient characteristics, and assigning of resources (human, financial, and facilities) can hinder implementation efforts.

conclusionsCompared to the mounting evidence on the efficacy of SDM interventions, knowledge to support their sustained implementation in daily care is still limited, albeit results show an increasing interest in strategies that facilitate their uptake in breast cancer care over time. These findings highlight different strategies that can be used to embed SDM interventions in clinical practice. Future work should investigate which approaches are more effective in light of organisational conditions and external factors, including an evaluation of costs and healthcare system settings.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBreastCritical PathwaysDecision Making, SharedFemaleHumansKnowledgeBreast cancerImplementationPatient decision aidsPRISM frameworkShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID37612645
PMCPMC10463920

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.