ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2025
Clinicians perspectives towards the application of shared decision making in tertiary CVD care including the multidisciplinary heart team.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Shared decision-making (SDM), is a sine qua non in healthcare. Yet, it has been difficult to implement SDM in routine practice for patients with cardiovascular disease(CVD). To improve this, we aimed to determine HCPs perspectives on their SDM behavior in CVD context and influencing factors, and with special focus on multidisciplinary heartteams. Methods: Cross-sectional survey between March-July 2022 with cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, medical residents, and nurse practitioners within two of the largest tertiary cardiac Centers in the Netherlands. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data; open-ended questions were thematically analyzed. Results: 72 participants completed the survey. Respondents indicated to know "very well" what SDM entailed (70 %) and had positive attitudes towards SDM (90 %). Participants used SDM in daily practice (SDMQDoc = 73/100), but indicated that more SDM could be performed (67 %). In self-reported definitions of SDM, explaining the consequences of treatment (step 2) and discussing patients' preferences (step 3) were most frequently mentioned. Barriers for SDM were patient and process characteristics: e.g. lack of time (70 %), understaffing (35 %). The heartteam was seen as potential facilitator, but its current role and process were seen as barrier for SDM. Facilitators for SDM were managerial support (16 %), decision aids (28 %), and SDM-training (13 %). Conclusion: HCPs reported high knowledge and application of SDM, but overlooked some steps in the SDM-process. A multifaceted intervention is needed focusing on awareness, enhancing communication skills and system level support. Specific improvements were identified to improve SDM for patients discussed by the multidisciplinary heartteam.
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.