Evidence mapPaperPMID 37744479Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Shared decision-making in healthcare in mainland China: a scoping review.

Xuejing Li, Dan Yang, Meiqi Meng, Junqiang Zhao, Yiyi Yin, Hefang Wang, Xiaoyan Zhang, Qian Liu, Mengdi Li, Jianping Liu and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Assessing patient information needs for new antidiabetic medications to inform shared decision-making: A best-worst scaling experiment in China.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    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

11 authors.

Xuejing LiSchool of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Dan YangSchool of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Meiqi MengSchool of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Junqiang ZhaoSchool of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Yiyi YinSchool of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Hefang WangSchool of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Xiaoyan ZhangSchool of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Qian LiuSchool of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Mengdi LiSchool of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Jianping LiuCenter for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Yufang HaoSchool of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) facilitates the participation of healthcare professionals and patients in treatment decisions. We conducted a scoping review to assess SDM's current status in mainland China, referencing the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF). Methods: Our review encompassed extensive searches across six English and four Chinese databases, and various gray literature until April 30, 2021. Results were synthesized using thematic analysis. Results: Out of the 60 included studies, we identified three key themes based on the ODSF framework: decisional needs, decision support, and decisional outcomes. However, there appears to be a lack of comprehensive understanding of concepts related to decisional needs in China. Only a few studies have delved into feasibility, preference, choice, and outcome factors in the SDM process. Another challenge emerges from an absence of uniform standards for developing patient decision aids (PDAs). Furthermore, regarding health outcome indicators, their predominant focus remains on physiological needs. Conclusion: SDM is in its infancy in mainland China. It is important to explore the concept and expression of decisional needs in the context of Chinese culture. Subsequent studies should focus on constructing a scientifically rigorous and systematic approach for the development of PDAs, and considering the adaptation of SDM steps to the clinical context in China during SDM implementation. Concurrently, The focus on health outcomes in Chinese SDM studies, driven by the unique healthcare resource landscape, underscores the necessity of prioritizing basic needs within limited resources. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/?s=202130021.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedDelivery of Health CareAsian PeopleChinaDatabases, FactualDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHealth PersonnelHumansdecisional needshealthcareOttawa decision support frameworkpatients decision aidsshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID37744479
PMCPMC10513465

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.