Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 30, 2025

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane
Titilayo Tatiana Agbadjé1,2, Paula Riganti3,4, Évèhouénou Lionel Adisso1,2
1Centre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne de l'Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Quebec, Canada.
Background:
Interventions to change health professionals' behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.
Methods:
We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under "what materials?" we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses.
Results:
Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: "brief name" (87/87, 100%), "why" (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and "what" (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were "materials" (29/87, 33%), "who" (23/87, 26%), and "when and how much" (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: "tailoring" (8/87, 9%), "modifications" (3/87, 4%), and "how well (actual)" (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported "How", (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%.
Conclusions:
Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.
More Related Videos
06:16Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
Published on: June 6, 2020
06:05The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
Group Design
Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...
Cochran's Q Test
Bias in Epidemiological Studies