ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Saving Shared Decision-Making.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and acceptability of an everyday patient-centered discussion model for primary care: An exploratory, single-center study in the VA primary care setting.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Shared decision-making for early-stage breast cancer treatment: An evolutionary concept analysis.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Review
- Shared Decision-Making. A Primer for Clinicians.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- An Everyday Patient-Centered Discussion Model for Primary Care: Protocol for a Feasibility and Acceptability Study of the Zeroing in on Individualized, Patient-Centered Decisions (ZIP) Approach.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Navigating Power Imbalances and Stigma in Mental Healthcare. Patient-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Shared Decision-Making in Mental Health Care, a Qualitative Meta-Summary.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Review
- Decision support tools in the absence of equipoise: the case for vaccination.BMJ public health · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality encouraged a re-examination of the concept, process, and measurement of shared decision-making (SDM) in 2016. Progress, however, has been slow. One illustrative example is SDM's relationship with the concept of equipoise: there remains little consensus on what equipoise means in the context of SDM, creating confusion about when SDM is and is not indicated. In this paper, we describe the ways in which this focus on equipoise in SDM is counter-productive and argue that equipoise is neither a necessary nor sufficient criterion in determining the need for SDM. Moreover, we suggest that what is needed to move the field of SDM forward is a shift away from focusing on when SDM is needed to instead focusing on how best to accomplish SDM across a variety of contexts by advancing the science of SDM implementation.
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.