ArticleMusculoskeletal care2025
Impact of a Decision Aid on Perceptions of Shared Decision-Making in the Primary Care Management of Patients With Subacromial Pain Syndrome: A Two-Phased Multi-Methods Study.
Article in Musculoskeletal care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSubacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) is the most common shoulder pain condition in primary care. Despite the importance of shared decision-making (SDM) being increasingly recognised, its application in SAPS care remains poorly understood. The primary aim of this study was to explore the influence of a decision aid on patient and observer perceptions of SDM, and secondarily to explore correlations between these ratings in the primary care management of patients with SAPS.
methodsWe conducted a multi-methods study including observations of consenting patients with SAPS in their clinical consultations with clinicians from four Danish primary care practices using OPTION-12. We gathered patients' perceptions of SDM 2 weeks after the consultation using the CollaboRATE questionnaire and Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). We observed consultations with and without the introduction of a decision aid tailored to support the management of patients.
resultsThirty-four consultations were observed (16 with and 18 without the decision aid). Without the aid, the mean (SD) OPTION-12 score was 10.5 (3.3), while the median (IQR) CollaboRATE and mean (SD) SDM-Q-9 scores were 5 (1.3) and 22.2 (7.5), respectively. With the aid, scores significantly increased: OPTION-12 to 22.7 (6.87, range 5-32), CollaboRATE to 6.5 (1.4), and SDM-Q-9 to 30.6 (8.4). Patients' and observers' OPTION-12 and SDM-Q-9 scores correlated significantly across both phases, but no significant correlation was found between CollaboRATE, OPTION-12, and SDM-Q-9 scores in either phase.
conclusionA decision aid significantly improved observer- and patient-rated SDM in primary care consultations for patients with SAPS. Observer-rated SDM scores more than doubled with the decision aid, and patients reported higher levels 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.