Cited by 138Ethics and bioethics in healthcarePatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

Shared decision-making and patient autonomy

Sandman, Lars, Munthe, Christian·2009·Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

Abstract

In patient-centred care, shared decision-making is advocated as the preferred form of medical decision-making. Shared decision-making is supported with reference to patient autonomy without abandoning the patient or giving up the possibility of influencing how the patient is benefited. It is, however, not transparent how shared decision-making is related to autonomy and, in effect, what support autonomy can give shared decision-making. In the article, different forms of shared decision-making are analysed in relation to five different aspects of autonomy: (1) self-realisation; (2) preference satisfaction; (3) self-direction; (4) binary autonomy of the person; (5) gradual autonomy of the person. It is argued that both individually and jointly these aspects will support the models called shared rational deliberative patient choice and joint decision as the preferred versions from an autonomy perspective. Acknowledging that both of these models may fail, the professionally driven best interest compromise model is held out as a satisfactory second-best choice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11017-009-9114-4

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sandman, L., & Munthe, C.
Affiliations
University of Gothenburg (SE)
Venue
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
Published
2009-08
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
289-310
ISSN
  • 0166-2031 (ISSN-L)
  • 1386-7415
  • 1573-1200
OpenAlex
W2080106940
Cited by
138
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Metamedicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Borås Academic Digital Archive (University of Borås) (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
shared decision-making, patient autonomy, patient-centered care, self-realization, preference satisfaction, self-direction, clinical decision-making
MeSH terms
Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Truth Disclosure, Negotiating, Professional Autonomy, Patient Satisfaction, Personal Autonomy, Paternalism

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