Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39556538›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

"Developing the tool SDM:KOMPASS. Supporting shared decision making implementation processes".

Lea Lund, Dorte Gilså Hansen, Lisa Korsbek, Mette Christiansen, Karina Dahl Steffensen, Karina Olling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

6 authors.

Lea LundCenter for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8546-5792
Dorte Gilså HansenCenter for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5946-9968
Lisa KorsbekMental Health Services, Vejle, Denmark.
Mette ChristiansenUniversity Hospital of Southern Denmark, Aabenraa, Denmark.
Karina Dahl SteffensenCenter for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.
Karina OllingCenter for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4667-0547

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shared decision-making (SDM) involves patients in choosing their treatment or care options. SDM enhances patient engagement and treatment satisfaction. SDM has proved difficult to implement and sustain in routine clinical practice, hence a supportive tool is needed. This quality improvement study focuses on the development of a generic tool, labeled SDM:KOMPASS, which is intended to support hospital settings by facilitating the visualization of their formative progress and the setting of goals for the SDM implementation into routine clinical practice. The main objective of the present paper is to describe the development of this generic tool. A six-step development process was performed to develop a tool and investigate the tool's overall perceived usability. Qualitative methods, such as observations, individual and focus group interviews, provided insights. A 10-item quantitative survey gauged informants' immediate attitudes towards the tool. Purposefully sampled informants (N = 20), including healthcare professionals and patients, contributed diverse perspectives regarding; 1) The tool's readability and clarity, 2) the construct's domains and content, and 3) the tool's perceived usability. In alignment with real-world challenges, SDM:KOMPASS emerges as a potentially valuable resource for healthcare organizations embedding SDM. The six-step development process revealed how the tool SDM:KOMPASS has potential to enhance SDM implementation's manageability, goal-setting, and focus. Professionals engaged in strategic implementation within somatic and mental hospital departments find the tool potentially beneficial and feasible. The tool shows promise and usability but requires careful attention due to its comprehensiveness. The next step is to alpha test the tool in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationQuality ImprovementSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39556538
PMCPMC11573207

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.