ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2023
Patient control preferences for medical decision making before and after evaluation for left ventricular assist device.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shared decision-making in depression: From a generalized ethical imperative to a personalized approach? A narrative review.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026Review
- Deciding on the decision-maker in older adults with cancer: Patient autonomy, physician paternalism, and caregiver support.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2026Article
- Shared Decision-Making in Severe Aortic Stenosis: Experiences and Needs of Older Patients.The Journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2025Article
- Journey through the Decades: The Evolution in Treatment and Shared Decision Making for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.Cancers · 2024Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding patients' preferred roles in medical decision making (i.e., passive, collaborative, active) is important to personalized care and patient engagement. Patient control preferences have been described for many treatment decisions, but their stability over time has not been characterized, particularly for major medical events with long-term implications. We prospectively surveyed 233 patients at the initiation of evaluation for a left ventricular assist device, and 1 and 6 months later, including collection of the Control Preferences Scale. Collaborative and active preferences were most common initially, followed by a shift towards more active. Approximately half of patients reported a different control preference in follow up. Patients with higher income and education levels were more likely to prefer an active role. These findings suggest that most patients want to be engaged in shared decision making, but to what degree is varied, can change over time, and is influenced by social determinants of health.
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.