Skip to main content
. 2024 Feb 9;10:21. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00550-w

Table 2.

Participants’ previous experiences and roles

n (%)
n = 20 (100%)
Researchers/graduate student (n = 12) Clinician-researchers (n = 5) Patients/consumers (n = 3)
Experience with PtDAs*
 Beginning to learn about PtDAs 2 (10) 2 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 Received PtDAs as an intervention in a health system 2 (10) 1 (8) 1 (20) 0 (0)
 Gave PtDAs to someone making a decision 12 (60) 5 (42) 5 (100) 2 (67)
 Was a participant in training to use PtDAs 7 (35) 4 (33) 1 (20) 2 (67)
 Develop(ed) PtDAs 15 (75) 9 (75) 5 (100) 1 (33)
 Was a participant in a research study evaluating PtDAs 8 (40) 6 (50) 2 (40) 0 (0)
 Conduct(ed) research about PtDAs 16 (80) 10 (83) 5 (100) 1 (33)
 Develop(ed) and/or promote(d) health policy that supports PtDAs 9 (45) 4 (33) 5 (100) 0 (0)
 Other (i.e., implementation of PtDAs in clinic, participated in online training on PtDA development) 2 (10) 1 (8) 1 (20) 0 (0)
Experience with systematic reviews*
 Read or reviewed abstracts/consumer summaries of a systematic review(s) 17 (85) 12 (100) 2 (40) 3 (100)
 Verified search strategies to be used in electronic databases 10 (50) 8 (67) 2 (40) 0 (0)
 Screened titles and abstracts of citations 17 (85) 12 (100) 4 (80) 1 (33)
 Screened full text of citations 18 (90) 12 (100) 5 (100) 1 (33)
 Searched grey literature source 11 (55) 9 (75) 2 (40) 0 (0)
 Extracted data into data collection forms 16 (80) 11 (92) 5 (100) 0 (0)
 Assessed risk of bias of included studies 12 (60) 8 (67) 4 (80) 0 (0)
 Conducted descriptive analyses of findings from eligible studies 14 (70) 10 (83) 4 (80) 0 (0)
 Conducted meta-analyses 8 (40) 6 (50) 2 (40) 0 (0)
 Assessed GRADE evidence ratings 9 (45) 6 (50) 3 (60) 0 (0)
 Conducted network meta-analyses 3 (15) 3 (25) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 Drafted a systematic review article(s) 17 (85) 11 (92) 5 (100) 1 (33)
 Provided feedback on a systematic review article(s) 19 (95) 11 (92) 5 (100) 3 (100)
 Co-authored a systematic review article(s) 17 (85) 11 (92) 5 (100) 1 (33)
 Peer-reviewed a systematic review article(s) for a journal 16 (80) 11 (92) 4 (80) 1 (33)
Expertise with SDM and interventions to support SDM*
 Shared decision making 16 (80) 10 (83) 5 (100) 1 (33)
 Patient decision aids 18 (90) 10 (83) 5 (100) 3 (100)
 Decision coaching 7 (35) 5 (42) 1 (20) 1 (33)
 Question prompts 6 (30) 3 (25) 2 (40) 1 (33)
 Other (i.e., communication skills, decision maps, guidelines development, attended a Shared Decision-Making conference) 3 (15) 1 (8) 1 (20) 1 (33)
Experience with IKT or research co-production*
 Patients on the research team who…
  Served in a consultative or advisory capacity 16 (80) 9 (75) 4 (80) 3 (100)
  Were considered equal members of the team and were involved in all or many aspects of project decision making 15 (75) 8 (67) 4 (80) 3 (100)
  Served on the executive committee or steering committee 13 (65) 7 (58) 4 (80) 2 (67)
 Health professionals on the research team who work clinically who…
  Served in a consultative or advisory capacity 16 (80) 10 (83) 4 (80) 2 (67)
  Were considered equal members of the team and were involved in all or many aspects of project decision making 19 (95) 12 (100) 4 (80) 3 (100)
  Served on the executive committee or steering committee 17 (85) 11 (92) 4 (80) 2 (67)
 Health services leaders on the research team who…
  Served in a consultative or advisory capacity 10 (50) 6 (50) 2 (40) 2 (67)
  Were considered equal members of the team and were involved in all or many aspects of project decision making 9 (45) 6 (50) 1 (20) 2 (67)
  Served on the executive committee or steering committee 11 (55) 6 (50) 3 (60) 2 (67)

IKT Integrated knowledge translation, IPDAS International Patient Decision Aids Standards, PtDA Patient decision aids, SDM Shared decision-making

*Participants could select more than one response