Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40028803›Full record

ReviewJournal of Brown hospital medicine2024

Shared Decision-Making in Patient Care: Advantages, Barriers and Potential Solutions.

Farzana Hoque

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Brown hospital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Pott's Puffy Tumor: A Rare Complication of Frontal Sinusitis.Journal of Brown hospital medicine · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Warfarin Induced Non-Uremic Calciphylaxis.Journal of Brown hospital medicine · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Farzana HoqueDivision of Hospital Medicine Saint Louis University.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9281-8138

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shared Decision-Making (SDM) is a collaborative process where physicians integrate scientific evidence with patients' goals, preferences, and values to make healthcare decisions. This approach contrasts with traditional methods, enhancing patient involvement and understanding. The BRAN questions (Benefits, Risks, Alternatives, Nothing) effectively facilitate SDM across various clinical settings, promoting patient safety. While time constraints and low health literacy pose barriers, strategies like visual aids, extended appointments, and cognitive assessments can mitigate these challenges. Training for physicians in SDM skills has been shown to improve patient outcomes and satisfaction, underscoring the importance of personalized care in outpatient and inpatient contexts.

Indexed as

Clinical practicePatient-centered carePatient experience.Patient satisfactionSDMShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID40028803
PMCPMC11864379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.