SynthesisPrimary health care research & development2025
To what extent do general practitioners involve patients in decision-making? A systematic review of studies using the OPTION-instrument.
Synthesis in Primary health care research & development, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis systematic review aimed to analyze studies assessing the extent to which General Practitioners (GPs) engage patients in the decision-making process during consultations.
backgroundShared Decision Making (SDM) stands at the core of patient-centred care, particularly in primary healthcare, where a diverse array of medical decisions transpires. In a 2015 systematic review summarizing studies on the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) instrument to assess SDM objectively across healthcare settings, a notable dearth of patient involvement was observed.
methodsA comprehensive literature search encompassing three digital databases was conducted up to November 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on studies employing a comparative study design, centric to primary healthcare, and utilizing the OPTION-5 or -12 instrument to gauge SDM levels. Two investigators independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction using a list of predefined variables, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. PROSPERO registration-ID: CRD42023475419.
findingsInitially, harvesting 447 articles, our review retained 29 studies published between 2003 and 2022. Mean age of GPs was 45.5 (range 33-53) years. Reported baseline OPTION scores varied between 1.5 and 57.2 on a 0-100-point scale, with a median score of 16. Following SDM interventions, OPTION-scores increased significantly to a median of 28.5, range 16-83.
conclusionThe overall level of SDM among GPs remains relatively low and has shown minimal improvement over the past decade. However, interventions promoting SDM appear to enhance patient involvement levels. This underscores the necessity for increased education and tools, directed at GPs and patients, to foster and elevate the practice of SDM.
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.