CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,137Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesEthics and bioethics in healthcare

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)

Charles, Cathy, Gafni, Amiram, Whelan, Tim·1997·Social Science & Medicine
DOI 10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Crossref · 10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Llewellyn-Thomas, 1992, Studying patients' preferences in health care decision making, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 147, 859

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 4,137

Related

See all

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)
DOI
10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3
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
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
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