ArticleBJGP open2022
Refining a primary care shared decision-making aid for lifestyle change: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a general practitioner-based rehabilitation follow-up consultation to promote patients' use of medical rehabilitation aftercare: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trial.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Use of the FebriDx point-of-care test for lower respiratory tract infections in primary care: a qualitative interview study.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Shared Decision-Making Training in Family Medicine Residency: A Scoping Review.Korean journal of family medicine · 2024Article
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
backgroundThe important role of primary care in promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours needs informed support.
aimTo elicit views on a 39-item shared decision-making (SDM) aid (SHARE-D) for lifestyle change and refine it to improve implementation. DESIGN &
settingMixed-methods study.
methodHealth professionals, patients, and support workers, with experience of managing or a history of cardio- or cerebrovascular disease, were purposively recruited based on age, sex, and urban/rural location (
resultsSubstantial agreement was observed on rating item inclusion. Based on survey and interview data, 9/39 items were removed; 13 were amended. Qualitative themes were: 1) core content of the decision-aid; 2) barriers to use; 3) motivation for lifestyle change; and 4) primary care implementation. 'Self-reflective' questions and goal setting were viewed as essential components. The paper-based format, length, clarity, and time required were barriers to its use. Optional support considered within the aid was seen as important to motivate change. A digital version, integrated into patient record systems was regarded as critical to implementation. A revised 30-item aid was considered suitable for facilitating brief conversations and promoting patient autonomy.
conclusionThe SHARE-D decision aid for healthy lifestyle change appears to have good content validity and acceptability. Survey and interview data provided in-depth information to support implementation of a refined version. Further studies should examine its effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.