4.7 Article

Trends in Shared Decision-Making Studies From 2009 to 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00384

关键词

shared decision-making; VOSviewer; CiteSpace; surgery; bibliometric analysis

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [18LZUJBWZX006, 2019jbkyjc002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To systematically analyze the global development trends and research focuses of shared decision-making (SDM) studies as a reference for researchers. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection on April 17, 2019, to retrieve studies related to SDM published from 2009 to 2018. VOSviewer (1.6.10), CiteSpace (5.4.R1) and Excel 2016 were used to analyze key features of SDM studies, including annual output, countries/regions, organizations, journals, authors, references, research hot-spots, and frontiers. Results: Up to April 17, 2019, a total of 6,629 studies on SDM were identified as published between 2009 and 2018. The United States participated in the most studies (n = 3,118), with the University of California-San Francisco ranking first (n = 183). Patient Education and Counseling [impact factor (IF) 2017 = 2.785] published the most studies (n = 257). Legare F participated in the most studies (n = 101), and the paper Charles C, 1997, Soc Sci Med, V44, P681 occupied the highest co-citation (n = 657) position. The research hotspots and frontiers included Informed consent, Surgery, Depression, Older adult, and Patient-centered care. Conclusion: The number of studies concerning SDM has continued to increase since 2009, with the United States leading the field. The landscape of the basis of SDM included mainly concept, practice framework and effect assessment of SDM. Informed consent, Surgery, Depression, Older adult, and Patient-centered care reflected the latest research focuses, and should receive more attention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据