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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 204 of the 205 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access

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,

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 · 10.1002/14651858.cd006732.pub4

Cites

204 of 204 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Hermansen Kobulnicky, 2002, The behavioral impact of teaching patients to monitor side effects of chemotherapy: an intervention study
  2. LeBlanc A Egginton J Inselman J Dick S Schuerman J Branda M Dissemination and Implementation of Evidence-Based Medicine in Primary Care Through The Use of Encounter Decision Aids: The ShareEBM Pragmatic Trial. ISDM2017. Lyon, France: 9th International Shared Decision Making Conference. Book of Abstract, Oral communications 2017
  3. Simmons M ‘If I could see on a piece of paper options for treatment that would just be insane’: Shared decision making in mental health. ISDM2017. Lyon, France: 9th International Shared Decision Making Conference. Book of Abstract, Posters Sessions 2017
  4. van Veenendaal H Voogdt-Pruis H Schuurman M Visserman E Oskam J Ubbink D Implementing shared decision-making (SDM) and time-out for breast cancer patients in six Dutch Hospitals. ISDM2017. Lyon, France: 9th International Shared Decision Making Conference. Book of Abstract, Posters Sessions 2017
  5. Adekpedjou R Stacey D Brière N Freitas A Garvelink M Turcotte S Improving the decision-making process with caregivers of elderly people about housing options: a cluster randomised trial. ISDM2017. Lyon, France: 9th International Shared Decision Making Conference. Book of Abstract, Oral communications 2017
  6. Dwinger S Gschwendtner K Müller N Bieber C Härter M Bergelt C Development and pilot testing of a face-to-face SDM coaching intervention for oncologists. ISDM2017. Lyon, France: 9th International Shared Decision Making Conference. Book of Abstract, Oral communications 2017
  7. Finderup J Dam Jensen JK Lomborg K Developing and pilot testing a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice. ISDM2017. Lyon, France: 9th International Shared Decision Making Conference. Book of Abstract, Oral communications 2017
  8. Henselmans H van Laarhoven HWM de Haes HCJM Tokat M Engelhardt EG van Maarschalkerweerd P Effect of a Skills Training for oncologists on shared decision making about palliative chemotherapy in simulated encounters. ISDM2017. Lyon, France: 9th International Shared Decision Making Conference. Book of Abstract, Posters Sessions 2017
  9. Lifford K Burton M Armitage F Collins K Reed M Wyld L Bridging the Age Gap trial of decision support interventions for older women with breast cancer: Preliminary process evaluation. ISDM2017. Lyon, France: 9th International Shared Decision Making Conference. Book of Abstract, Posters Sessions 2017
  10. Ludden T Taylor Y Kuhn L McWilliams A Dulin M Tapp H “Who Made the Decision Today?” Surveying asthma patients level of shared decision making in an RCT. ISDM2015. Sydney, Australia: Joint International Shared Decision-Making and International Society for Evidence-Based Health Care Conference 2015
  11. 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
  12. Coulter A Engaging patients in their healthcare. How is the UK doing relative to other countries? Oxford: Picker Institute Europe 2006
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2013, The Global Burden of Disease: Generating Evidence, Guiding Policy
  18. 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
  19. Shafir, 2012, Shared Decision Making: Advancing Patient-Centered Care through State and Federal Implementation, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 698

Metadata

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
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