Cited by 698Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Policy Implementation SciencePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

Open access
Légaré, France, Adekpedjou, Rhéda, Stacey, Dawn, Turcotte, Stéphane, Kryworuchko, Jennifer, Graham, Ian D, Lyddiatt, Anne, Politi, Mary C +3 more·2018·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01,

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 · 10.1002/14651858.cd006732.pub4

Cites

204 of 204 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • We identified six RCTs that evaluated educational interventions for critically ill patients and their families.

    “We identified six RCTs that evaluated educational interventions for critically ill patients and their families (583-588).”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [587]

    The Background identifies this paper as a review of 87 studies, not one of the six RCTs the citing sentence says it identified. The Results discuss educational interventions and include a family-engagement trial, but do not describe this paper as an RCT of educational interventions for critically ill patients and their families. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • By simulating scenarios that mirror real-life clinical decision-making processes, and through reading the multi-agent conversations, clinicians can be made aware of potential cognitive biases and how to correct them, facilitating learning in a controlled, educational environment.

    “By simulating scenarios that mirror real-life clinical decision-making processes, and through reading the multi-agent conversations, clinicians can be made aware of potential cognitive biases and how to correct them. This facilitates learning in a controlled, educational environment [25,26].”

    From Mitigating cognitive biases in clinical decision-making through multi-agent conversations using large language models: simulation study (2024) · cites this paper as [25]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not show a difference in mortality between patients who receive continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) versus intermittent hemodialysis (IHD).

    “Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses (501, 502) summarized the total body of evidence: they do not show a difference in mortality between patients who receive continuous (CRRT) versus intermittent hemodialysis (IHD).”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [501]

    The Results passages compare shared-decision-making interventions, not mortality after continuous renal replacement therapy versus intermittent hemodialysis. Searches for CRRT, IHD, renal replacement therapy, mortality, and hemodialysis found no passage in our copy addressing that comparison. The copy is truncated, so the claim cannot be verified from it. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 205 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Simmons L, Meyer C, Marques F, Leavitt L, Sepucha K. Skills training for shared decision making: a randomized pilot study. ISDM2017. Lyon, France: 9th International Shared Decision Making Conference. Book of Abstract, Oral communications. 2017.
  2. Coulter A. Engaging patients in their healthcare. How is the UK doing relative to other countries?. Oxford: Picker Institute Europe 2006.
  3. Cochrane Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). What study designs should be included in an EPOC review? EPOC resources for review authors, 2017. Available at: http://epoc.cochrane.org/resources/epoc‐resources‐review‐authors.
  4. Cochrane Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). Data collection form. EPOC Resources for review authors, 2017. Available at: http://epoc.cochrane.org/resources/epoc‐resources‐review‐authors.
  5. Cochrane Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews. EPOC Resources for review authors, 2017. http://epoc.cochrane.org/resources/epoc‐resources‐review‐authors.
  6. Cochrane Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC worksheets for preparing a Summary of Findings (SoF) table using GRADE. EPOC Resources for review authors, 2017. Available at: http://epoc.cochrane.org/resources/epoc‐resources‐review‐authors.
  7. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. The Global Burden of Disease: Generating Evidence, Guiding Policy. Seattle: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), 2013. [Google Scholar]
  8. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al. Chapter 12: Interpreting results, drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JPT. Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.. Available from http://training.cochrane.org/handbook.
  9. Shafir A, Rosenthal J. Shared Decision Making: Advancing Patient‐Centered Care through State and Federal Implementation. National Academy for State Health Policy, 2012:1‐38. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Légaré, F., Adekpedjou, R., Stacey, D., Turcotte, S., Kryworuchko, J., Graham, I. D., Lyddiatt, A., Politi, M. C., Thomson, R., Elwyn, G., & Donner-Banzhoff, N.
Affiliations
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Hôpital Saint-François d'Assise (CA)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • No affiliation; 28 Greenwood Road Ingersoll ON Canada N5C 3N1
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Cochrane (GB)
  • University of Marburg; Department of Family Medicine / General Practice; Karl-von-Frisch-Str. 4 Marburg Germany D-35039
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-07-19
Volume
2018
Issue
7
Pages
CD006732-CD006732
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2884603128
Cited by
698
References
205
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 120 · 2024: 124 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 99 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
10.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
shared decision-making, healthcare workers, intervention, decision aids, patient activation, patient education, patient-provider communication, decision regret, patient satisfaction, patient-reported outcomes, patient-centered care, implementation of shared decision making, multicomponent intervention, contamination risk, risk of bias, quality of evidence, patient engagement, patient participation
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Decision Support Techniques, Health Personnel, Humans, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Participation, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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