Publication trends of shared decision making in 15 high impact medical journals: a full-text review with bibliometric analysis

Abstract

BackgroundShared Decision Making (SDM) is increasingly advocated as a model for medical decision making. However, there is still low use of SDM in clinical practice. High impact factor journals might represent an efficient way for its dissemination. We aimed to identify and characterize publication trends of SDM in 15 high impact medical journals.MethodsWe selected the 15 general and internal medicine journals with the highest impact factor publishing original articles, letters and editorials. We retrieved publications from 1996 to 2011 through the full-text search function on each journal website and abstracted bibliometric data. We included publications of any type containing the phrase “shared decision making” or five other variants in their abstract or full text. These were referred to as SDM publications. A polynomial Poisson regression model with logarithmic link function was used to assess the evolution across the period of the number of SDM publications according to publication characteristics.ResultsWe identified 1285 SDM publications out of 229,179 publications in 15 journals from 1996 to 2011. The absolute number of SDM publications by journal ranged from 2 to 273 over 16 years. SDM publications increased both in absolute and relative numbers per year, from 46 (0.32% relative to all publications from the 15 journals) in 1996 to 165 (1.17%) in 2011. This growth was exponential (P < 0.01). We found fewer research publications (465, 36.2% of all SDM publications) than non-research publications, which included non-systematic reviews, letters, and editorials. The increase of research publications across time was linear. Full-text search retrieved ten times more SDM publications than a similar PubMed search (1285 vs. 119 respectively).ConclusionThis review in full-text showed that SDM publications increased exponentially in major medical journals from 1996 to 2011. This growth might reflect an increased dissemination of the SDM concept to the medical community.

Trends in Shared Decision-Making Studies From 2009 to 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis

“…We found a rapidly increasing trend in SDM studies published between 2009 and 2018, which is consistent with the findings of Blanc et al (12) Among the top 10 countries/regions, the United States (n = 3,118) participated in by far the most papers and had an absolute advantage in terms of the number of studies, followed by several other countries from Western countries, such as England (n = 742) and Canada (n = 694). Meanwhile, there was also close cooperation between these countries.…”

Shared Decision Making and Choice for Bariatric Surgery

“…Among all the items, the patients attached the least importance to the cost of bariatric surgery. The possible reason is that Taiwan National Health Insurance specifies that if an obese patient meets the following conditions: (1) BMI ≥ 40, or BMI ≥ combined with obesity-related complications; (2) age between 18 and 55 years old; (3) failure of weight loss treatment after more than half a year of medical treatment in an internal medical department; (4) no endocrine system abnormalities or other diseases that cause obesity; (5) no drug abuse or mental illness; (6) no major organ dysfunction and acceptance of the risk of surgery, the patient only has to pay for medical consumables, thus, the costs for the ward balance and the health insurance part are not high [50]. If the patient has commercial insurance benefits, the cost is even lower, thus, the cost of bariatric surgery was the aspect of the least concern for patients.…”

“…In SDM, at least the doctor and the patient should participate together, where the doctor presents the empirical information of various dispositions, while the patient presents their individual preferences and values, and this information exchange and discussion will achieve the best possible treatment options [4]. In the process of medical communication, SDM is considered to be the best way to make decisions [5]. Patient decision aids (PDAs) can be in the form of leaflets, brochures, films, or web tools that provide a clear description of the various options, using comparisons to state possible benefits and harms and allowing patients to evaluate the impact of various good or bad conditions from their own perspectives, and then work with healthcare providers to make the most appropriate personal decision [6].…”

Primary versus secondary source of data in observational studies and heterogeneity in meta-analyses of drug effects: a survey of major medical journals

“…General and internal medicine journals with an impact factor > 15 according to the Web of Science were included in the survey [ 10 ]. This method has been widely used to assess quality as well as publication trends in medical journals [ 11 – 13 ]. The rationale is that meta-analyses published in high impact journals: (1) are likely to be rigorously performed and reported due to the exhaustive editorial process [ 12 , 14 ]; and, (2) in general, exert a higher influence on medical practice due to the major role played by these journals in the dissemination of the new medical evidence [ 14 , 15 ].…”