ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2024
Patient-reported effects of hospital-wide implementation of shared decision-making at a university medical centre in Germany: a pre-post trial.
Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of a shared decision-making implementation programme on patient-centred communication in oncology-Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Trial
- Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Shared Decision Making: Evidence from a Prospective Multicenter Study Evaluating a Hospital-Based Intervention in Germany.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- FAIR-Birth: Development and Feasibility Testing of an AI-Supported Advance Birth Planning Application for Midwifery-Led Antenatal Care-A Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Developing evidence-based, cost-effective P4 cancer medicine for driving innovation in prevention, therapeutics, patient care and reducing healthcare inequalities.Molecular oncology · 2026Article
- [A matter of the system: how shared decision making is self-scaling across the healthcare system].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Shared Decision-Making for Periodontally Compromised Teeth: Study Protocol for an Ongoing Prospective Multicenter Before-and-After Clinical Trial.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Article
- Shared Decision-Making in Korean Healthcare: A Scoping Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Fostering Shared Decision-Making Between Patients and Health Care Professionals in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Protocol for a Project to Develop and Test a Tool for Guideline Developers.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Sufficiency health-wise: sustainable paths towards planetary and public health.Frontiers in public health · 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
18 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the SHARE TO CARE (S2C) programme, a complex intervention designed for hospital-wide implementation of shared decision-making (SDM).
designPre-post study.
settingUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel Campus.
participantsHealthcare professionals as well as inpatients and outpatients from 22 departments of the Kiel Campus of UKSH.
interventionsThe S2C programme is a comprehensive implementation strategy including four core modules: (1) physician training, (2) SDM support training for and support by nurses as decision coaches, (3) patient activation and (4) evidence-based patient decision aid development and integration into patient pathways. After full implementation, departments received the S2C certificate.
main outcome measuresIn this paper, we report on the feasibility and effectiveness outcomes of the implementation. Feasibility was judged by the degree of implementation of the four modules of the programme. Outcome measures for effectiveness are patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). The primary outcome measure for effectiveness is the Patient Decision Making subscale of the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS
resultsThe implementation of the four components of the S2C programme was able to be completed in 18 of the 22 included departments within the time frame of the study. After completion of implementation, PICS
conclusionsThe hospital-wide implementation of SDM with the S2C-programme proved to be feasible and effective within the time frame of the project. The German Federal Joint Committee has recommended to make the Kiel model of SDM a national standard of care.
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.