SynthesisAnaesthesia2026
Key targets for activating anaesthesia shared decision-making: a mixed methods systematic review.
Synthesis in Anaesthesia, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionShared decision-making in anaesthesia is widely endorsed yet delivered inconsistently. This mixed methods systematic review aimed to identify primary activation targets for enhancing shared decision-making in peri-operative anaesthesia practice.
methodsDatabases were searched for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies employing shared decision-making in adult anaesthesia. Data were narratively synthesised, appraised with the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool, and mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify behavioural determinants. Findings were grouped at clinician, patient and system levels to derive shared decision-making activation targets.
resultsEleven studies met inclusion criteria. Synthesis yielded nine activation targets across levels. Clinician-focused priorities included: training in shared decision-making communication with rehearsal and feedback; structured elicitation of patient preferences using open questions and direct invitations; and avoiding assumptions about patient capacity during shared decision-making discussions. Patient-level priorities required making anaesthesia choices explicit; providing anxiety-reducing explanations; and ensuring accessible educational materials. Scheduling shared decision-making earlier in the care pathway, protecting consultation time and offering decision support before appointments emerged as system-level priorities, alongside embedding shared decision-making prompts within clinic templates to support workflow integration. DISCUSSION: This review identifies that shared decision-making in anaesthesia requires co-ordinated action on key activation targets. To embed shared decision-making into routine clinical workflows, earlier consultation scheduling, protected time for anaesthesia discussions and the use of standardised shared decision-making tools with accessible patient information are priority components for service enhancement. The theoretically-informed findings offer a practical route moving anaesthesia practice away from tokenistic shared decision-making endorsement, towards streamlined, patient-centred shared decision-making delivery in anaesthetic care.
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.