ArticleBMJ open2025
'A return on investment'. How shared decision-making benefits doctors: a key informant interview study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Person-First or Disease-First? Language Choices in Cancer Communication.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo elicit the benefits of shared decision-making to doctors who are champions of this approach.
designA qualitative interview study that used practical thematic analysis.
settingWe identified a purposive international sample of doctors in active clinical practice who were recognised champions of shared decision-making, working in various clinical disciplines.
participants24 doctors in active clinical practice were interviewed; 14 were male and 10 were female; 20 had been in clinical practice for over 10 years (range 1-30). 12 practised in North America, 10 in Europe, 1 in South America and 1 in Asia; 4 doctors worked in internal medicine, 4 in primary care, 5 in surgery, 3 in paediatrics, 3 in oncology and 1 in each of the following disciplines: emergency medicine, palliative care, geriatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, anaesthesiology, and cardiology.
resultsThis selected sample of doctors consistently reported that shared decision-making provided benefits to themselves, their patients and their teams. Shared decision-making reinforced and enhanced their self-identity as ethical professionals, supporting patient autonomy, increasing their professional fulfilment and reducing their risk of burnout. These intrinsic benefits accompanied reports of other consequential benefits, namely, patients' achieving better-informed, preference-sensitive decisions, a higher likelihood of improved patient outcomes, improved efficiency and team function. The doctors viewed the approach as providing connectedness, shared responsibility resulting in a lighter burden, acting as a buttress against moral injury and the emotional strain of clinical work and, where relevant, mitigation against becoming the second victim of a bad or unexpected outcome. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Doctors who champion shared decision-making report significant benefits to themselves and their patients. These benefits have not been widely reported, which has implications for motivating doctors to adopt shared decision-making. Instead of addressing presumed gaps in communication skills, it might be better to highlight the positive impact on professional fulfilment and the protective effect of 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.