ArticleACR open rheumatology2024
Shared Decision-Making During Virtual Care Regarding Rheumatologic and Chronic Conditions: Qualitative Study of Benefits, Pitfalls, and Optimization.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring digital health technology in rheumatology: a scoping review on benefits, challenges, and future possibilities.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Review
- Perceptions of healthcare professionals in rheumatology on the use of prediction models in clinical practice.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2026Article
- Clinician and patient experiences with shared decision-making to promote daily arm use for individuals with chronic stroke: an exploratory qualitative study.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveVirtual care (VC) is an accepted modality of care delivery, and shared decision-making (SDM) benefits patients with rheumatologic and chronic conditions (RCCs). Unfortunately, research suggests reduced quality of SDM during VC. This study explores the benefits and shortcomings of SDM regarding RCCs during VC with suggestions for optimally using VC during SDM.
methodsFollowing Stiggelbout's framework for SDM, we conducted focus groups of patients with RCCs and providers to understand their experiences with SDM during VC, probing for facilitating and challenging factors. We conducted content analysis of the transcripts, defining themes, and inductively reasoned to identify relationships among themes. We summarized the facilitators, barriers, and opportunities for improving SDM during VC that participants proposed.
resultsVirtual SDM shares several similarities with in-person practice, as both draw upon trusting patient-provider relationships, following the same general steps, and relying on effective communication. VC presents solutions for known barriers to in-person SDM, expanding time for making decisions and access to care. Technology and virtual health systems introduce new barriers to SDM, and participants list opportunities for overcoming these concerns.
conclusionVC is a tool that can enhance and even support superior SDM compared with in-person visits when implemented successfully, a condition requiring the development of nuanced skills to correctly identify when and how to best use VC for SDM as well as technology and health care structures that integrate SDM into VC. Therefore, patients, providers, insurance carriers, and policy makers all contribute to the success of SDM among RCCs during VC.
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.