Cited by 285Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareEthics and bioethics in healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tools to Promote Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: A Systematic Review

Open access
Austin, C. Adrian, Mohottige, Dinushika, Sudore, Rebecca L., Smith, Alexander K., Hanson, Laura C.·2015·JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Serious illness impairs function and threatens survival. Patients facing serious illness value shared decision making, yet few decision aids address the needs of this population. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of evidence about decision aids and other exportable tools that promote shared decision making in serious illness, thereby (1) identifying tools relevant to the treatment decisions of seriously ill patients and their caregivers, (2) evaluating the quality of evidence for these tools, and (3) summarizing their effect on outcomes and accessibility for clinicians. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and PsychInfo from January 1, 1995, through October 31, 2014, and identified additional studies from reference lists and other systematic reviews. Clinical trials with random or nonrandom controls were included if they tested print, video, or web-based tools for advance care planning (ACP) or decision aids for serious illness. We extracted data on the study population, design, results, and risk for bias using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Each tool was evaluated for its effect on patient outcomes and accessibility. FINDINGS: Seventeen randomized clinical trials tested decision tools in serious illness. Nearly all the trials were of moderate or high quality and showed that decision tools improve patient knowledge and awareness of treatment choices. The available tools address ACP, palliative care and goals of care communication, feeding options in dementia, lung transplant in cystic fibrosis, and truth telling in terminal cancer. Five randomized clinical trials provided further evidence that decision tools improve ACP documentation, clinical decisions, and treatment received. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinicians can access and use evidence-based tools to engage seriously ill patients in shared decision making. This field of research is in an early stage; future research is needed to develop novel decision aids for other serious diagnoses and key decisions. Health care delivery organizations should prioritize the use of currently available tools that are evidence based and effective.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.1679

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 57 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–285 of 285

Metadata

Authors
Austin, C. A., Mohottige, D., Sudore, R. L., Smith, A. K., & Hanson, L. C.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2015-07-01
Volume
175
Issue
7
Pages
1213
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2149566104
Cited by
285
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 4
FWCI
27.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  • National Institute on Aging (K23AG040772, R01AG045043, R01AG037483)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
shared decision-making, serious illness, decision aids, advance care planning, palliative care, patient knowledge, caregiver involvement
MeSH terms
Catastrophic Illness, Decision Making, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Critical Illness

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