ArticleBMC health services research2025
Deciding on the location for receiving parenteral antimicrobial therapy: development and preliminary testing of a patient decision aid.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdult patients who need further treatment with parenteral antimicrobial therapy after a stay in the emergency department could be involved in the decision about the location of treatment. Although patients often get admitted to hospitals for parenteral antimicrobial therapy, they can also receive it in their home with different support. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and alpha test a patient decision aid to support patient involvement in this decision.
methodsA systematic development process was guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. This process included developing a patient decision aid and conducting individual interviews with Danish patients and healthcare professionals to test the comprehensibility, acceptability, and usability of the aid. Directed content analysis guided the analysis.
resultsAn in-consult 2-page patient decision aid was developed to fit the busy environment of the emergency department. It included (a) a title specifying the decision; (b) information on the treatment, three options, advantages and disadvantages of the options; (c) a value clarification exercise; and (d) a question about preferred option. The patient decision aid met the qualifying criteria of the International Standards for Decision Aids. Participants’ feedback on the comprehensibility was positive, indicating explicit and clear options, and minor suggestions for editing. The healthcare professionals were reserved when asked about the acceptance and usefulness of the patient decision aid because the three options were not considered equal and were difficult to offer due to limited resources. The patients were also skeptical that their preferences could be considered in the decision-making, and they expressed uncertainty about whether treatment at home was as safe as hospitalization. The healthcare professionals recognized the importance of shared decision-making. However, the implementation of the decision aid would necessitate specific competencies, and identification of the best time to introduce it to patients.
conclusionsUsing a systematic process, a patient decision aid was developed. Comprehensive findings revealed that the decision aid could be useful in supporting shared decision-making and in clarifying the available options. However, for the decision aid to be implemented, there needs to be a clear context and training of healthcare professionals in shared decision-making.
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.