ArticlePloS one2024
Shared decision-making in psoriasis care: Evaluation of how patients' perception of clinicians' delivery of care changes by age and sex.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Consultation to Collaboration: A Patient-Centered Approach to Shingles Pain and Postherpetic Neuralgia Management.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- [Variants of biotechnological drugs in dermatology : Status quo and future].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShared decision-making (SDM) refers to a collaborative process in which clinicians assist patients in making medically informed, evidence-based decisions that align with their values and preferences. There is a paucity of literature on SDM in dermatology.
objectiveWe aim to assess whether male and female psoriasis patients evaluate their clinicians' engagement in SDM differently across different age groups.
methodsCross-sectional study using data from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS).
resultsA weighted total of 7,795,608 psoriasis patients were identified. SDM Scores ranged from 1 to 4, with 4 representing the most favorable patient evaluation of their clinicians' engagement in SDM. We conducted multivariate linear regression to compare mean SDM Scores in male psoriasis patients versus female psoriasis patients across different patient age groups. Female patients ages 60-69 perceived significantly greater clinician engagement in SDM compared to age-matched male patients (female patient perception of SDM 3.65 [95%CI:3.61-3.69] vs. male patient perception of SDM 3.50 [95%CI:3.43-3.58], p<0.005). The same trend of older female patients evaluating their clinicians' engagement in SDM significantly higher than their age-matched male counterparts exists for the age group >70 (p<0.005). No significant differences between male and female patients' evaluations of their clinicians' engagement in SDM were demonstrated in subjects younger than 60. All calculations were adjusted for demographic and clinical factors.
conclusionsCompared to older male psoriasis patients, older female psoriasis patients evaluated their clinicians to be more engaged in shared decision-making.
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.