↓ Skip to main content

Evidence summaries (decision boxes) to prepare clinicians for shared decision-making with patients: a mixed methods implementation study

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Evidence summaries (decision boxes) to prepare clinicians for shared decision-making with patients: a mixed methods implementation study
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0144-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anik MC Giguere, Michel Labrecque, R Brian Haynes, Roland Grad, Pierre Pluye, France Légaré, Michel Cauchon, Matthew Greenway, Pierre-Hugues Carmichael

Abstract

BackgroundDecision boxes (Dboxes) provide clinicians with research evidence about management options for medical questions that have no single best answer. Dboxes fulfil a need for rapid clinical training tools to prepare clinicians for clinician-patient communication and shared decision-making. We studied the barriers and facilitators to using the Dbox information in clinical practice.MethodsWe used a mixed methods study with sequential explanatory design. We recruited family physicians, residents, and nurses from six primary health-care clinics. Participants received eight Dboxes covering various questions by email (one per week). For each Dbox, they completed a web questionnaire to rate clinical relevance and cognitive impact and to assess the determinants of their intention to use what they learned from the Dbox to explain to their patients the advantages and disadvantages of the options, based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Following the 8-week delivery period, we conducted focus groups with clinicians and interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Dbox information.ResultsOne hundred clinicians completed the web surveys. In 54 % of the 496 questionnaires completed, they reported that their practice would be improved after having read the Dboxes, and in 40 %, they stated that they would use this information for their patients. Of those who would use the information for their patients, 89 % expected it would benefit their patients, especially in that it would allow the patient to make a decision more in keeping with his/her personal circumstances, values, and preferences. They intended to use the Dboxes in practice (mean 5.6¿±¿1.2, scale 1¿7, with 7 being ¿high¿), and their intention was significantly related to social norm, perceived behavioural control, and attitude according to the TPB (P¿<¿0.0001). In focus groups, clinicians mentioned that co-interventions such as patient decision aids and training in shared decision-making would facilitate the use of the Dbox information. Some participants would have liked a clear ¿bottom line¿ statement for each Dbox and access to printed Dboxes in consultation rooms.ConclusionsDboxes are valued by clinicians. Tailoring of Dboxes to their needs would facilitate their implementation in practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 207 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 17%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Other 16 8%
Other 58 28%
Unknown 41 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 20%
Social Sciences 20 10%
Psychology 18 9%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 51 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 12 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,799,598
of 25,262,379 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#576
of 1,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,564
of 261,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#12
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,262,379 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 261,435 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.