Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38638611›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care

Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions about the Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study from a Virtual Community of Practice.

Alezandra Torres-Castaño, Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez, Débora Koatz, Vanesa Ramos-García, Ana Isabel González-González, Ana Toledo-Chávarri, Carlos Jesús Bermejo-Caja, Himar Gonzalez-Pacheco, Analia Abt-Sack, Valeria Pacheco-Huergo and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Alezandra Torres-CastañoCanary Islands Health Research Institute Foundation, Tenerife, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4690-1421
Lilisbeth Perestelo-PérezEvaluation Unit of the Canary Island Health Service (SESCS), Tenerife, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6113-7313
Débora KoatzNetwork for Research on Chronicity, Primary Care, and Health Promotion (RICAPPS), Tenerife, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8178-7540
Vanesa Ramos-GarcíaCanary Islands Health Research Institute Foundation, Tenerife, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9106-2420
Ana Isabel González-GonzálezNetwork for Research on Chronicity, Primary Care, and Health Promotion (RICAPPS), Tenerife, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7167-4211
Ana Toledo-ChávarriCanary Islands Health Research Institute Foundation, Tenerife, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2395-3907
Carlos Jesús Bermejo-CajaGerencia Asistencial de Atención Primaria, Servicio Madrileño de Salud, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1425-6691
Himar Gonzalez-PachecoCanary Islands Health Research Institute Foundation, Tenerife, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6651-0693
Analia Abt-SackCanary Islands Health Research Institute Foundation, Tenerife, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7153-8586
Valeria Pacheco-HuergoAvedis Donabedian Research Institute (FAD), Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4520-8799
Carola OrregoNetwork for Research on Chronicity, Primary Care, and Health Promotion (RICAPPS), Tenerife, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2978-6268
Red de Investigación en Actividades Preventivas y Promoción de la Salud · ESUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESInstitut Català de la Salut · ESMadrid Health Service · ESMinistry of Health · BT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The incorporation of shared decision making (SDM) is a central part of empowerment processes, as it facilitates greater activation on the part of patients, increasing the likelihood of them gaining control over their healthcare and developing skills to solve their health problems. Despite these benefits, there are still difficulties in the implementation of SDM among healthcare professionals due to internal and external factors related to the context and health systems. Aim: To explore primary care professionals (PCPs)' perceptions of the SDM model, based on their preconceptions and experience in clinical practice. Methods: A framework analysis was conducted on qualitative data derived from a virtual community practice forum, within a cluster-randomized clinical trial developed in the e-MPODERA project. Results: The most important points in the opinions of the PCPs were: exploring the patients' values, preferences and expectations, providing them with and checking their understanding of up-to-date and evidence-based health information. The analysis revealed three themes: determinants of the implementation process of SDM, lack of consistency and dilemmas and benefits of PCP active listening, motivation and positive expectations of SDM. Discussion: In our initial analysis, we examined the connections between the categories of the TDC model and its application in the primary care context. The categories related to the model reflect the theoretical understanding of professionals, while those related to perceptions of its application and use show certain discrepancies. These discrepancies could indicate a lack of understanding of the model and its real-world implications or insufficient commitment on the part of professionals or the organization to ensure its effective implementation. Conclusions: Specific targeted training that addresses knowledge, attitudes and practice may resolve the aforementioned findings.

Indexed as

empowermenthealthcare professionalsperceptionsprimary careshared decision-makingvirtual community of practice

Identifiers

PMID38638611
PMCPMC11025573
OpenAlexW4394886859

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.