MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415758849 · doi:10.1177/23814683251386466

Barriers and Facilitators for Shared Decision Making in Breast Reconstruction among Stakeholders in the Chinese Context: A Qualitative Study

2025· article· en· W4415758849 on OpenAlexaff
Xuejing Li, Meiqi Meng, Yiyi Yin, Dan Yang, Junqiang Zhao, Xiaohua Li, Xiaoyan Zhang, Han Liu, Sihan Chen, Ziyan Wang, Pei Xue, Yufang Hao

Bibliographic record

VenueMDM Policy & Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health CarePublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersBeijing University of Chinese Medicine
KeywordsQualitative researchHealth careClinical decision makingBreast reconstructionQualitative analysisHealth professionalsPatient participationCulturally appropriate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. This qualitative study explores the barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision making (SDM) for breast reconstruction (BR) from multistakeholder perspectives in the Chinese health care context. Methods. A qualitative study was conducted from November 2021 to January 2022, involving 36 participants, including patients, doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators from 3 tertiary hospitals in Beijing, Hebei, and Guangzhou. Purposeful and snowball sampling was used until data saturation. In-depth semi-structured interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results. Findings from 36 stakeholders (20 patients, 16 health care providers/administrators) revealed 5 key dimensions influencing SDM implementation: decision making, patient, health care professional (HCP), organizational, and societal levels. Notable factors include patient self-efficacy, information needs, HCPs’ role recognition and SDM competencies, team coordination, SDM convenience, availability of support tools, and cultural influences. Limitations. The limitations of this study primarily stem from the narrow sample source, which includes only 3 regions in mainland China. Conclusion. Successful SDM implementation in China requires optimizing clinical workflows, utilizing technological tools, providing professional training, and integrating SDM with traditional Chinese medicine philosophies. These strategies enhance decision-making quality and align SDM practices with Chinese cultural values. Practice Implications. Integrating culturally sensitive SDM into clinical workflows, supported by decision tools, training, and robust policies, is essential for BR SDM in China. Highlights Identified barriers and facilitators on shared decision making for breast reconstruction from multistakeholder perspectives in China’s health care context. Explored cultural influences on shared decision making for breast reconstruction in Chinese patients. Emphasized the importance of integrating shared decision making into existing clinical workflows. Proposed integrating traditional Chinese medicine diagnostics with shared decision making for culturally sensitive care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMDM Policy & PracticeSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207