ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2026
Shared decision-making with patients with limited health literacy - experiences and needs of GPs regarding values clarification.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "It Depends on the Situation": Variability in How Surgical Oncologists Elicit and Integrate Patient Values.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionValues clarification, a key but under-implemented component of shared decision-making (SDM), involves identifying what matters to a patient relevant to a health decision. It is especially important for patients with limited health literacy (LHL), who often struggle to express preferences. General practitioners (GPs) play a central role in facilitating this process, yet their experiences are underexplored.
aimTo explore how GPs experience values clarification with patients with LHL, the challenges they face, and which support or strategies they consider helpful to better integrate values clarification into decision-making.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 GPs purposively selected from practices in lower socioeconomic areas. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the framework method.
resultsFour themes emerged: GPs consider values clarification important but challenging; it goes hand in hand with problem analysis; trust and continuity of care are essential foundations; and relatives can support and hinder the process. GPs described two contrasting situations: patients with LHL adopting a passive role, prompting a more paternalistic approach, and patients with LHL with strong expectations that can conflict with clinical guidelines. GPs expressed needs for training, prompts or scripts, and strategies to explore expectations before consultations.
conclusionValues clarification in the context of SDM with patients with LHL is complex and context dependent. Given their ongoing relationships with patients, GPs are well-positioned to facilitate this. GPs' experiences indicate that values clarification may occur throughout the consultation - often intertwined with problem analysis - reflecting the dynamic nature of SDM in general practice.
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.