Shared Decision-making in Healthcare in Mainland China: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) has been increasingly studied and applied to improve patients’ decision qualities and health outcomes. Little is known about its development status in mainland China. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has been extensively used to guide clinicians and patients facing difficult healthcare decisions. It claims that decision quality can be improved though the implementation of decision support interventions that address patients’ decisional needs. Objective: Based on ODSF, the objective of the scoping review is to systematically map the existing research literature to answer the following three questions: 1) What healthcare decisional needs were examined within Chinese population? 2) What decision support interventions (SDM theories, tools, processes, implementation determinants) were used to address the healthcare decisional needs? and 3) What SDM outcomes were reported? Methods and analysis: We will conduct the scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley’ six-stage methodological framework. Seven databases: Ovid MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, The VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine will be searched to identify relevant studies. Four reviewers will independently screen studies based on the eligibility criteria. The ODSF, as a guiding framework, will be used to develop the data extraction form and guide data analysis. All the retrieved information will be coded and mapped into the three key components of ODSF, namely decisional needs, decision support interventions, and decision outcomes. We will report our review findings following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guidelines.Discussion: This study will be the first comprehensive and systematic review to understand the SDM research status in mainland China. The results of this review will help us to identify the gaps in current SDM research and inform future theoretical and empirical studies.Registration: Inplasy protocol 202130021. doi: 10.37766/inplasy2021.3.0021
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.092 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".