Satisfaction of patients and primary care physicians with shared decision making

Satisfaction with treatment is regarded as an important outcome measure, but its suitability has not been thoroughly investigated in the context of shared decision making (SDM). The authors evaluated whether both patients' and physicians' satisfaction ratings differ between an intervention group and a control group within a structured tool for cardiovascular prevention (ARRIBA-Herz). In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, controlled trial, 44 family physicians in the intervention group consecutively recruited 550 patients whereas 47 physicians in the control group included 582 patients. Main findings were high satisfaction ratings independent of group allocation in patients and physicians. Significant differences had only negligible effect sizes. Compared to global satisfaction ratings, the effects of the shared decision-making process are better measured by a more concrete approach representing different steps of this process. Further research should refine behaviorally oriented questionnaires that measure SDM and a version for physicians should also be created

Registered Replication Report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988)

According to the facial feedback hypothesis, people\u2019s affective responses can be influenced by their own facial expression (e.g., smiling, pouting), even when their expression did not result from their emotional experiences. For example, Strack, Martin, and Stepper (1988) instructed participants to rate the funniness of cartoons using a pen that they held in their mouth. In line with the facial feedback hypothesis, when participants held the pen with their teeth (inducing a \u201csmile\u201d), they rated the cartoons as funnier than when they held the pen with their lips (inducing a \u201cpout\u201d). This seminal study of the facial feedback hypothesis has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 17 independent direct replications of Study 1 from Strack et al. (1988), all of which followed the same vetted protocol. A meta-analysis of these studies examined the difference in funniness ratings between the \u201csmile\u201d and \u201cpout\u201d conditions. The original Strack et al. (1988) study reported a rating difference of 0.82 units on a 10-point Likert scale. Our meta-analysis revealed a rating difference of 0.03 units with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 120.11 to 0.16. \ua9 2016, \ua9 The Author(s) 2016