Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 16;17(3):e0265401.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265401. eCollection 2022.

Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Titilayo Tatiana Agbadjé  1   2 , Paula Riganti  3   4 , Évèhouénou Lionel Adisso  1   2 , Rhéda Adekpedjou  1   2 , Alexandrine Boucher  1   2 , Andressa Teoli Nunciaroni  5 , Juan Victor Ariel Franco  3   4 , Maria Victoria Ruiz Yanzi  3 , France Légaré  1   2   6
Affiliations

Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Titilayo Tatiana Agbadjé et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Interventions to change health professionals' behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

Methods: We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under "what materials?" we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses.

Results: Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: "brief name" (87/87, 100%), "why" (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and "what" (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were "materials" (29/87, 33%), "who" (23/87, 26%), and "when and how much" (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: "tailoring" (8/87, 9%), "modifications" (3/87, 4%), and "how well (actual)" (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported "How", (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%.

Conclusions: Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Level of reporting of TIDieR items by year of publication.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social science & medicine. 1997;44(5):681–92. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Makoul G, Clayman M. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient education and counseling. 2006;60(3):301–12. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grad R, Légaré F, Bell NR, Dickinson JA, Singh H, Moore AE, et al. Shared decision making in preventive health care: What it is; what it is not. 2017;63(9):682–4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Joosten EA, DeFuentes-Merillas L, De Weert G, Sensky T, Van Der Staak C, de Jong CA. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychotherapy and psychosomatics. 2008;77(4):219–26. doi: 10.1159/000126073 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hauser K, Koerfer A, Kuhr K, Albus C, Herzig S, Matthes JJ. Outcome-relevant effects of shared decision making: a systematic review. DÄI 2015;112(40):665. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0665 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types