ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2023
The Practice of Shared Decision-Making Among Physiotherapists and Patients with Musculoskeletal Conditions.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2023. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Shared decision-making (SDM) may be interpreted as a set of core values rather than as a consensus definition. This study aimed to explore how SDM between patients and physiotherapists may lead to patient satisfaction. Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted to examine the relationship between SDM and patient satisfaction. The study targeted physiotherapists and patients with musculoskeletal pain or disorders. A structured questionnaire (the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire) was developed to show the extent to which patients felt involved in the process by scoring nine items from 0 to 5 on a six-point scale. Results: The questionnaire was completed by a total of 106 patients and nine physiotherapists. The demographic information of the samples was presented with frequency analysis. This study's findings demonstrate no variations in the final SDM perceptions between patients and physiotherapists, but when SDM was contrasted step-by-step (as items), many variances were discovered. These distinctions reinforce the notion that regardless of the end outcome, the process of reaching a consensus has a distinct profile depending on the type of medical care. Therapists emphasize the first steps, possibly because there is sufficient evidence to make a therapeutic decision. However, patients highlight the final steps, perhaps because the moment for a decision based on the consultation's nature is approaching. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that SDM is a complex process that must be examined in multiple stages. However, in physiotherapy contexts, this process exhibits extremely different patterns, reflecting a significantly different perspective of the decision-making process.
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.