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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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