↓ Skip to main content

Decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision making in chronic illnesses: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision making in chronic illnesses: a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2019
DOI 10.1186/s13643-019-1034-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas H. Wieringa, Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla, Maartje de Wit, Oscar J. Ponce, Manuel F. Sanchez-Herrera, Nataly R. Espinoza, Yaara Zisman-Ilani, Marleen Kunneman, Linda J. Schoonmade, Victor M. Montori, Frank J. Snoek

Abstract

Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered approach in which clinicians and patients work together to find and choose the best course of action for each patient's particular situation. Six SDM key elements can be identified: situation diagnosis, choice awareness, option clarification, discussion of harms and benefits, deliberation of patient preferences, and making the decision. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) require that a decision aid (DA) support these key elements. Yet, the extent to which DAs support these six key SDM elements and how this relates to their impact remain unknown. We searched bibliographic databases (from inception until November 2017), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, and experts for randomized controlled trials of DAs in patients with cardiovascular, or chronic respiratory conditions or diabetes. Reviewers worked in duplicate and independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial, and DA characteristics, and evaluated the quality of each trial. DAs most commonly clarified options (20 of 20; 100%) and discussed their harms and benefits (18 of 20; 90%; unclear in two DAs); all six elements were clearly supported in 4 DAs (20%). We found no association between the presence of these elements and SDM outcomes. DAs for selected chronic conditions are mostly designed to transfer information about options and their harms and benefits. The extent to which their support of SDM key elements relates to their impact on SDM outcomes could not be ascertained. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016050320 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 15%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Unspecified 9 7%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 33 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 17%
Unspecified 9 7%
Psychology 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 37 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2022.
All research outputs
#6,132,189
of 24,946,857 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,044
of 2,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,500
of 356,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#27
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,946,857 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.