The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)
Abstract
Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated as an ideal model of treatment decision-making in the medical encounter. To date, the concept has been rather poorly and loosely defined. This paper attempts to provide greater conceptual clarity about shared treatment decision-making, identify some key characteristics of this model, and discuss measurement issues. The particular decision-making context that we focus on is potentially life threatening illnesses, where there are important decisions to be made at key points in the disease process, and several treatment options exist with different possible outcomes and substantial uncertainty. We suggest as key characteristics of shared decision-making (1) that at least two participants-physician and patient be involved; (2) that both parties share information; (3) that both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment; and (4) that an agreement is reached on the treatment to implement. Some challenges to measuring shared decision-making are discussed as well as potential benefits of a shared decision-making model for both physicians and patients.
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
“The shared decision making model suggests that HCPs can facilitate shared decisions by presenting treatment options, outlining the benefits and risks, and helping patients/caregivers to evaluate these options against their own goals and preferences.[36–37]”
From Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities (2014) · cites this paper as [37]
Citations
Cites
(1951) · Cited by 8,693
Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine.
(1991) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-114-9-825_9 · Cited by 3,497
Four Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship
Emanuel, E. J. (1992) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480160079038 · Cited by 2,453
Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature
Ong, L. M. L., de Haes, J. C. J. M., Hoos, A. M., & Lammes, F. B. (1995) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)00155-m · Cited by 2,430
Expanding Patient Involvement in Care
Greenfield, S., Kaplan, S. H., & Ware, J. E. (1985) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-102-4-520 · Cited by 1,459
Reduction of Postoperative Pain by Encouragement and Instruction of Patients
Egbert, L. D., Battit, G. E., Welch, C. E., & Bartlett, M. K. (1964) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm196404162701606 · Cited by 1,147
Information and Participation Preferences Among Cancer Patients
Cassileth, B. R., ZUPKIS, R. V., SUTTON-SMITH, K., & MARCH, V. (1980) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-92-6-832 · Cited by 1,135
Patients’ participation in medical care
Greenfield, S., Kaplan, S. H., Ware, J. E., Yano, E. M., & Frank, H. J. L. (1988) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02595921 · Cited by 1,117
Decision making during serious illness: What role do patients really want to play?
Degner, L. F., & Sloan, J. A. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90110-9 · Cited by 1,012
Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy
Ende, J., Kazis, L. E., Ash, A. S., & Moskowitz, M. A. (1989) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02596485 · Cited by 938
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Llewellyn-Thomas, 1992, Studying patients' preferences in health care decision making, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 147, 859
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,010 of 1,010
Finnerty, M. T., Layman, D. M., Chen, Q., Leckman-Westin, E., Bermeo, N., Ng-Mak, D. S., Rajagopalan, K., & Hoagwood, K. E. (2018) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201800130 · Cited by 28
Medical Shared Decision Making with a Virtual Agent
Zhang, Z., & Bickmore, T. (2018) · Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents · doi:10.1145/3267851.3267883 · Cited by 28
“Unlike other frameworks in which SDM is built upon the traditional patient-clinician dyad [2], this conceptual framework includes the role of decision coach to facilitate SDM.”
BackgroundMethodHoeft, T. J., Hinton, L., Liu, J., & Unützer, J. (2016) · The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2015.07.003 · Cited by 25
“Shared decision making (SDM) is another important aspect of patient309 centered care that helps articulate the patient’s values and preferences, and inform clinical decision 310 making (83-85).”
Sultana, J., Sutradhar, I., Rahman, M. J., Khan, A. N. S., Chowdhury, M. A. K., Hasib, E., Chhetri, C., Mahmud, S. M. H., Kashem, T., Kumar, S., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19031465 · Cited by 16
“Shared decision-making is a way to reduce information asymmetry in healthcare services [26], whereby a lack of knowledge flow from physicians to patients during service provision can create mistrust in doctor-patient relationships [27,28].”
BackgroundInfluentialEmmett, C., Poole, M., Bond, J., & Hughes, J. C. (2014) · International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family · doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebu012 · Cited by 14
Ishii, M., Okumura, Y., Sugiyama, N., Hasegawa, H., Noda, T., Hirayasu, Y., & Ito, H. (2014) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/1471-244x-14-111 · Cited by 13
“Shared decision making (SDM) is a promising model for the movement in which patients and clinicians share all information and individual preferences regarding the treatment through the entire decision making process [3].”
Shared Decision-Making in Obesity Treatment
Imbus, J. R., & Funk, L. M. (2019) · Quality in Obesity Treatment · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-25173-4_17 · Cited by 6
Platts-Mills, T. F., McLean, S. A., Weinberger, M., Stearns, S. C., Bush, M., Teresi, B. B., Hurka-Richardson, K., Kroenke, K., Kerns, R. D., Weaver, M. A., et al. (2020) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04552-3 · Cited by 5
Morandi, S., Silva, B., Pauli, G., Martinez, D., Bachelard, M., Bonsack, C., & Golay, P. (2024) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.03.017 · Cited by 2
“Shared decision making can be defined as a process in which patients and professionals exchange information in order to build consensus on the best treatment options and to reach agreement on the care to be implemented (Charles et al., 1997).”
(2011) · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T.
- Affiliations
- McMaster University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Charles, Cathy
- ORCID
- Gafni, Amiram
- Venue
- Social Science & Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1997-03
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 681-692
- ISSN
- 0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2040607890
- Cited by
- 4,137
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 168 · 2025: 200 · 2024: 224 · 2023: 213 · 2022: 174 · 2021: 247 · 2020: 250 · 2019: 233 · 2018: 224 · 2017: 234 · 2016: 209 · 2015: 182 · 2014: 221 · 2013: 192 · 2012: 187
- FWCI
- 63.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- shared decision-making, physician-patient relationship, treatment decision-making, shared information, consensus building, patient involvement in care
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Humans, Informed Consent, Models, Psychological, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Patient Satisfaction
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
