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 accessAbstract
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.
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.
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Prior research has suggested benefit (505) or harm (506) for “early” versus “delayed” initiation of RRT.”
From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [505]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“A family care conference with nursing staff at the time of discharge from the ICU resulted in lower anxiety scores for family members compared to a control group although it is not clear that families participated in SDM (592).”
From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [592]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“This study is the first multicenter randomized trial to our knowledge to test a decision aid in an acute care setting (49).”
From Effects of a Personalized Web-Based Decision Aid for Surrogate Decision Makers of Patients With Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation (2019) · cites this paper as [49]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Studies of tools employed to promote SDM in patients with other serious illnesses show improved patient knowledge and awareness of treatment options [595].”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [595]
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
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,586
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 · Cited by 10,578
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
Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., & for the CONSORT Group (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661 · Cited by 3,510
What is ‘quality of evidence’ and why is it important to clinicians?
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.be · Cited by 3,250
Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., & the TREND Group (2004) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.3.361 · Cited by 2,817
CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Elbourne, D. R., & Altman, D. G. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702 · Cited by 2,557
Steinhauser, K. E. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.284.19.2476 · Cited by 2,518
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021
Evans, L., Rhodes, A., Alhazzani, W., Antonelli, M., Coopersmith, C. M., French, C., Machado, F. R., Mcintyre, L., Ostermann, M., Prescott, H. C., et al. (2021) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y · Cited by 5,082
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021.
Evans, L., Rhodes, A., Alhazzani, W., Antonelli, M., Coopersmith, C. M., French, C., Machado, F. R., Mcintyre, L., Ostermann, M., Prescott, H. C., et al. (2021) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000005337 · Cited by 2,935
2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes
Vrints, C. J., Andreotti, F., Koskinas, K. C., Rosselló, X., Adamo, M., Ainslie, J., BANNING, A. P., Budaj, A., Buechel, R. R., Chiariello, G. A., et al. (2024) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae177 · Cited by 3,521
Rietjens, J. A. C., Sudore, R. L., Connolly, M., van Delden, J. J., Drickamer, M. A., Droger, M., van der Heide, A., Heyland, D. K., Houttekier, D., Janssen, D. J. A., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30582-x · Cited by 1,371
Self-citationOverview of Systematic Reviews of Advance Care Planning: Summary of Evidence and Global Lessons
Jiménez, G., Tan, W. S., Virk, A., Low, C. K., Car, J., & Ho, A. H. Y. (2018) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.05.016 · Cited by 553
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
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2015-07-01
- Volume
- 175
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1213
- ISSN
- 2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4794743
- OpenAlex
- W2149566104
- Semantic Scholar
- c9934e781aa4171f4cff3787350c56f4aa9c9d3b
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
