Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37727700›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2023

Is it fun or is it hard? Studying physician-related attributes of shared decision-making by ranking case vignettes.

Laura Spinnewijn, Johanna Aarts, Didi Braat, Nikolaj Baranov, Klaas Sijtsma, Jules Ellis, Fedde Scheele

Abstract 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. 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

7 authors.

Laura SpinnewijnRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Johanna AartsAmsterdam University Medical Centers, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Didi BraatRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Nikolaj BaranovRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Klaas SijtsmaTilburg University, Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Jules EllisRadboud University, Behavioural Science Institute, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Fedde ScheeleVU University, Athena Institute for Trans-Disciplinary Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study investigated provider-related attributes of shared decision-making (SDM). It studied how physicians rank SDM cases compared to other cases, taking 'job satisfaction' and 'complexity' as ranking criteria. Methods: Ten vignettes representing three cases of SDM, three cases dealing with patients' emotions and four with technical problems were designed to conduct a modified ordinal preference elicitation study. Gynaecologists and trainees ranked the vignettes for 'job satisfaction' or 'complexity'. Results were analysed by comparing the top three and down three ranked cases for each type of case using exact Results: Participants experienced more satisfaction significantly from performing technical cases than cases dealing with emotions or SDM. Moreover, technical cases were perceived as less complex than those dealing with emotions. However, results were inconclusive about whether gynaecologists find SDM complex. Conclusion: Findings suggest gynaecologists experience lower satisfaction with SDM tasks, possibly due to them falling outside their comfort zone. Integrating SDM into daily routines and promoting culture change favouring dealing with non-technical problems might help mitigate issues in SDM implementation. Innovation: Our novel study assesses SDM in the context of task appraisal, illuminating the psychology of health professionals and providing valuable insights for implementation science.

Indexed as

ComplexityCulture changeGynaecologistsJob satisfactionNon-technical problemsShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID37727700
PMCPMC10506089

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.