Connecting Patient Preparation to Clinical Dialogue in Digital Shared Decision-Making: A Focused Rapid Review of Reviews With a Mechanism-Informed Synthesis

Clicks: 3
ID: 339207
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #172 of 175 articles by views in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 175 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Digital tools can prepare patients for decisions, but effects on clinical dialogue are uncertain. We synthesized review-level evidence on shared decision-making and examined the role of timing and workflow. Methods We rapidly reviewed systematic, meta-analytic, and scoping reviews identified through targeted PubMed, publisher-platform, and citation searches to 17 July 2026. One reviewer selected, extracted, and appraised reports and revisited eligibility after extraction. We synthesized outcomes descriptively and developed an interpretive model. Results Eleven reviews were included. Knowledge, decisional conflict, and preparation generally improved; evidence for interpersonal processes was less extensive. Preconsultation aids increased reported decision discussion (68.6% versus 50.2%), whereas separate in-consultation trials, mostly of paper aids, improved observer ratings (mean difference 12.14; 95% confidence interval 8.12–16.16). The trial sets were not directly compared. The five proposed links were decision recognition, patient preparation, clinical visibility, deliberative interaction, and decision closure and follow-through; downstream safety evidence was sparse. Conclusion Digital preparation alone does not establish improved deliberation or safety. The model is interpretive and unvalidated. Comparative studies should test information flow and outcomes for dialogue, quality, safety, and equity.
Reference Key
openalex_W7225452121 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jiun-Yih Lee
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/intqhc/mzag189
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzag189
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.