Comparison #1: Decision coaching vs evidence‐based information ‐ Summary of findings: Knowledge
Comparison #2: Decision coaching showed no clear difference in knowledge tests: Standardised on score from 0 to 100 (none to… compared with evidence‐based information ‐ Summary of findings (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Comparison #2: Decision coaching vs evidence‐based information ‐ Summary of findings Knowledge tests: Standardised on score from 0 to 100 (none to perfect) knowledge Comparison #2: Decision coaching showed no clear difference in knowledge tests: Standardised on score from 0 to 100 (none to… compared with evidence‐based information ‐ Summary of findings (low certainty). Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 406 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.