The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Patient preferences for shared decisions: A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Objectives Empirical literature on patient decision role preferences regarding treatment and screening was reviewed to summarize patients’ role preferences across measures, time and patient population. Methods Five databases were searched from January 1980-December 2007 (1980- 2007 Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsychInfo, Web of Science and PubMed (2005-2007). Eligible studies measured patient decision role preferences, described measures, presented findings as percentages or mean scores and were published in English from any country. Studies were compared by patient population, time of publication, and measure. Results 115 studies were eligible. The majority of patients preferred sharing decisions with physicians in 63% of the studies. A time trend appeared. The majority of respondents preferred sharing decision roles in 71% of the studies from 2000 and later, compared to 50% of studies before 2000. Measures themselves, in addition to patient population influenced the preferred decision roles reported. Conclusion Findings appear to vary with the measure of preferred decision making used, time of the publication and characteristics of the population. Practice implications The role preference measure itself must be considered when interpreting patient responses to a measure or question about a patient's preference for decision roles.
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.
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
Assessing Information and Decision Preferences of Men With Prostate Cancer and Their Partners
Davison, B. J., Gleave, M. E., Goldenberg, S. L., Degner, L. F., Hoffart, D., & Berkowitz, J. (2002) · Cancer Nursing · doi:10.1097/00002820-200202000-00009 · Cited by 230
Cited by
Where Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes
Shay, L. A., & Lafata, J. E. (2015) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x14551638 · Cited by 1,214
Légaré, F., & Witteman, H. O. (2013) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1078 · Cited by 783
Patel, M. R., Calhoon, J. H., Dehmer, G. J., Grantham, J. A., Maddox, T. M., Maron, D. J., & Smith, P. K. (2017) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.034 · Cited by 493
Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: a meta-analysis
Lindhiem, O., Bennett, C. B., Trentacosta, C. J., & McLear, C. (2014) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.002 · Cited by 315
Knops, A. M., Legemate, D. A., Goossens, A., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & Ubbink, D. T. (2013) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3182864fd6 · Cited by 231
Metadata
- Authors
- Chewning, B., Bylund, C. L., Shah, B., Arora, N. K., Gueguen, J. A., & Makoul, G.
- Venue
- Patient Education and Counseling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-18
- ISSN
- 0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2032618582
- Cited by
- 849
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient preferences for shared decisions: A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004
- The paper
- Chewning, B., Bylund, C. L., Shah, B., Arora, N. K., Gueguen, J. A., & Makoul, G. (2012). Patient preferences for shared decisions: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.