Evidence mapPaperPMID 36868578Full record

ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2023

Problem-based shared decision-making in diabetes care: a secondary analysis of video-recorded encounters.

Merel M Ruissen, Victor M Montori, Ian G Hargraves, Megan E Branda, Montserrat León García, Eelco Jp de Koning, Marleen Kunneman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Physician Perceptions of Dose Escalation for Type 2 Diabetes Medications in the United States.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Merel M RuissenDepartment of Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5720-0674
Victor M MontoriKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0595-2898
Ian G HargravesKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Megan E BrandaKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Montserrat León GarcíaKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Eelco Jp de KoningDepartment of Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marleen KunnemanKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA kunneman@lumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-5334-1085

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe the range of collaborative approaches to shared decision-making (SDM) observed in clinical encounters of patients with diabetes and their clinicians.

designA secondary analysis of videorecordings obtained in a randomised trial comparing usual diabetes primary care with or without using a within-encounter conversation SDM tool.

settingUsing the purposeful SDM framework, we classified the forms of SDM observed in a random sample of 100 video-recorded clinical encounters of patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care.

main outcome measuresWe assessed the correlation between the extent to which each form of SDM was used and patient involvement (OPTION12-scale).

resultsWe observed at least one instance of SDM in 86 of 100 encounters. In 31 (36%) of these 86 encounters, we found only one form of SDM, in 25 (29%) two forms, and in 30 (35%), we found ≥3 forms of SDM. In these encounters, 196 instances of SDM were identified, with weighing alternatives (n=64 of 196, 33%), negotiating conflicting desires (n=59, 30%) and problemsolving (n=70, 36%) being similarly prevalent and developing existential insight accounting for only 1% (n=3) of instances. Only the form of SDM focused on weighing alternatives was correlated with a higher OPTION12-score. More forms of SDM were used when medications were changed (2.4 SDM forms (SD 1.48) vs 1.8 (SD 1.46); p=0.050).

conclusionsAfter considering forms of SDM beyond weighing alternatives, SDM was present in most encounters. Clinicians and patients often used different forms of SDM within the same encounter. Recognising a range of SDM forms that clinicians and patients use to respond to problematic situations, as demonstrated in this study, opens new lines of research, education and practice that may advance patient-centred, evidence-based care.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2CommunicationDecision Making, SharedHumansPatient ParticipationResearch DesignDiabetes Mellitus

Identifiers

PMID36868578
PMCPMC10314025

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.