The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Communicating Evidence for Participatory Decision Making
Abstract
CONTEXT: Informed patients are more likely to actively participate in their care, make wiser decisions, come to a common understanding with their physicians, and adhere more fully to treatment; however, currently there are no evidence-based guidelines for discussing clinical evidence with patients in the process of making medical decisions. OBJECTIVE: To identify ways to communicate evidence that improve patient understanding, involvement in decisions, and outcomes. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Systematic review of MEDLINE for the period 1966-2003 and review of reference lists of retrieved articles to identify original research dealing with communication between clinicians and patients and directly addressing methods of presenting clinical evidence to patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators and a research assistant screened 367 abstracts and 2 investigators reviewed 51 full-text articles, yielding 8 potentially relevant articles. DATA SYNTHESIS: Methods for communicating clinical evidence to patients include nonquantitative general terms, numerical translation of clinical evidence, graphical representations, and decision aids. Focus-group data suggest presenting options and/or equipoise before asking patients about preferred decision-making roles or formats for presenting details. Relative risk reductions may be misleading; absolute risk is preferred. Order of information presented and time-frame of outcomes can bias patient understanding. Limited evidence supports use of human stick figure graphics or faces for single probabilities and vertical bar graphs for comparative information. Less-educated and older patients preferred proportions to percentages and did not appreciate confidence intervals. Studies of decision aids rarely addressed patient-physician communication directly. No studies addressed clinical outcomes of discussions of clinical evidence. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of evidence to guide how physicians can most effectively share clinical evidence with patients facing decisions; however, basing our recommendations largely on related studies and expert opinion, we describe means of accomplishing 5 communication tasks to address in framing and communicating clinical evidence: understanding the patient's (and family members') experience and expectations; building partnership; providing evidence, including a balanced discussion of uncertainties; presenting recommendations informed by clinical judgment and patient preferences; and checking for understanding and agreement.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature
Ong, L. M. L., de Haes, J. C. J. M., Hoos, A. M., & Lammes, F. B. (1995) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)00155-m · Cited by 2,430
Ethnicity and Attitudes Toward Patient Autonomy
Blackhall, L. J. (1995) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530100060035 · Cited by 1,011
Relapse prevention with antidepressant drug treatment in depressive disorders: a systematic review
Geddes, J. R., Carney, S. M., Davies, C., Furukawa, T. A., Kupfer, D. J., Frank, E., & Goodwin, G. M. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12599-8 · Cited by 945 · cited 1×
“A systematic review of 31 randomized trials comparing antidepressant continuation with discontinuation concluded that continuing antidepressants reduced the risk of relapse within the next 12 months.(32) The average risk of relapse across trials was 18% with active treatment and 41% with placebo (number needed to trea…”
BackgroundPrejudice, clinical uncertainty and stereotyping as sources of health disparities
Balsa, A. I., & McGuire, T. G. (2003) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(02)00098-x · Cited by 333
Cited by
Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., Cording, E., Tomson, D., Dodd, C., Rollnick, S., et al. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6 · Cited by 4,405
The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiry
Borrell-Carrio, F. (2004) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.245 · Cited by 1,546
Coproduction of healthcare service
Batalden, M., Batalden, P., Margolis, P., Seid, M., Armstrong, G., Opipari-Arrigan, L., & Hartung, H. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004315 · Cited by 1,078
A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence
Trevena, L. J., (Hons), H. M. D. B. (. M., Barratt, A., Butow, P., & Caldwell, P. (2006) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00596.x · Cited by 329
Life and treatment goals of individuals hospitalized for first-episode nonaffective psychosis
Ramsay, C. E., Broussard, B., Goulding, S. M., Cristofaro, S., Hall, D., Kaslow, N. J., Killackey, E., Penn, D., & Compton, M. T. (2011) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2011.05.039 · Cited by 150
Metadata
- Authors
- Epstein, R. M.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2004-05-19
- Volume
- 291
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 2359
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W1972038081
- Cited by
- 628
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 91.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Communicating Evidence for Participatory Decision Making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.291.19.2359
- The paper
- Epstein, R. M. (2004). Communicating Evidence for Participatory Decision Making. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.19.2359
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.