The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Shared decision-making and patient autonomy
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“These perspectives support and are supported by prior research calling for MAiD care coordination, inter-professional approaches, and attention to applicants’ and families’ emotional, social and spiritual needs, among others [24, 25, 50–52].”
Citations
Cites
Principles of Biomedical Ethics
(2012) · Thieves of Virtue · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9079.003.0009 · Cited by 13,453
Principles of biomedical ethics
Horton, J. (2002) · Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · doi:10.1016/s0035-9203(02)90265-8 · Cited by 4,408
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137 · cited 1×
“One of the reasons given for why decision-making should be shared is to expand the room for patient autonomy without abandoning the patient or giving up the possibility to influence how the patient is benefited [2-4].”
BackgroundPatient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature
Mead, N., & Bower, P. (2000) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00098-8 · Cited by 2,993
Charles, C. A., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. J. (1999) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00145-8 · Cited by 2,439
Communication and the Evolution of Society
Alford, C. F., Habermas, J., & McCarthy, T. (1979) · New German Critique · doi:10.2307/487856 · Cited by 2,416
The Theory and Practice of Autonomy
Dworkin, G. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625206 · Cited by 2,022
An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters
Makoul, G. T., & Clayman, M. L. (2005) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010 · Cited by 1,703
The Theory and Practice of Autonomy.
EKSTROM, L. W., & Dworkin, G. (1993) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2185696 · Cited by 1,120
Utilitarianism: For and Against.
Ellis, A., Smart, J. J. C., Williams, B., & Quinton, A. M. (1974) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2217943 · Cited by 1,112
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 1990. Vårdetik, 3rd ed. Stockholm: Thales.
- Mill, John Stuart. 2003 [1859]. On liberty. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the faces of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Investigating Trust, Expertise, and Epistemic Injustice in Chronic Pain
Buchman, D. Z., Ho, A., & Goldberg, D. S. (2016) · Journal of Bioethical Inquiry · doi:10.1007/s11673-016-9761-x · Cited by 223
Adherence, shared decision-making and patient autonomy
Sandman, L., Granger, B. B., Ekman, I., & Munthe, C. (2012) · Medicine Health Care and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s11019-011-9336-x · Cited by 150
Self-citationNiemasik, E. E., Letourneau, J. M., Dohan, D. P., Katz, A., Melisko, M., Rugo, H. S., & Rosen, M. P. (2012) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-012-0227-9 · Cited by 108
Dierckx, K., Deveugele, M. I., Roosen, P., & Devisch, I. (2013) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20120286 · Cited by 107
Person Centred Care and Shared Decision Making: Implications for Ethics, Public Health and Research
Munthe, C., Sandman, L., & Cutas, D. (2011) · Health Care Analysis · doi:10.1007/s10728-011-0183-y · Cited by 106
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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
