ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024
A New Process Model for Relationship-Centred Shared Decision-Making in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Settings.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 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.
- Making Room for Every Voice: Reimagining Person-Centred Care in the Neurosciences.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- The Effects of Patients' Health Information Behaviors on Shared Decision-Making: Evaluating the Role of Patients' Trust in Physicians.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
introductionWe present a relationship-centred shared-decision-making (RCSDM) process model to explicate factors that shape decision-making processes during physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR) encounters among patients, their care partners and practitioners. Existing shared decision-making (SDM) models fall short in addressing the everyday decisions routinely made regarding persons with chronic disabilities who require high levels of support, their care partners and rehabilitation practitioners. In PMR, these everyday decisions are small scale, immediate and in service to a larger therapeutic goal. They can be thought of as micro-decisions and involve multiple practitioners, care partners and patients. How micro-decisions are made in this context is contingent on multiple roles and relationships among these relevant parties. Our model centres on micro-decisions among patients, their care partners and practitioners based on our disorders of consciousness (DoC) research.
methodsTo develop our model, we examined peer-reviewed literature in SDM in PMR, chronic disability and person-centeredness; formed collaborations and co-created our constructs with rehabilitation practitioners and with care partners who have lived experience of caring for persons with DoC; analysed emerging empirical data and vetted early versions with expert scientific and clinical audiences. Our model builds from the core tenets of relational autonomy, and scholarship and activism of disability advocates.
findingsOur model conceptualizes four non-hierarchical levels of analysis to understand the process of micro-decision-making in chronic disability and medical rehabilitation: social forces (historical and sociological); roles and relationships (multiple and intersecting); relational dimensions (interactional and contextual) and micro-decision moments (initiation, response and closure). DISCUSSION: Relationships among patients, their care partners and practitioners are the intersubjective milieu within which decisions are made. Our conceptual model explicates the process of micro-decision-making in PMR. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Care partners (or caregivers) and rehabilitation practitioners are active members of our team. We work together to develop research projects, collect, analyse and disseminate data. The conceptual model we present in this manuscript was co-created-input from care partners and practitioners on previously collected data became the impetus to develop the RCSDM process model and share co-authorship in this manuscript.
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.