Cited by 399Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareDiabetes Management and EducationChronic Disease Management Strategies

A shared treatment decision‐making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes

Open access
Montori, Victor M., Gafni, Amiram, Charles, Cathy·2006·Health Expectations

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the Charles et al. approach to shared treatment decision‐making (STDM) as applied to patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians. We perceive differences between the type of treatment decisions (e.g. end‐of‐life care, surgical treatment of cancer) that generated existing approaches of shared decision‐making for acute care conditions (including the Charles et al. model) and the treatment decisions that patients with chronic conditions need to make and revisit on an ongoing basis. For instance, treatment decisions in the chronic care setting are more likely to require a more active patient role in carrying out the decision and to offer a longer window of opportunity to make decisions and to revisit and reverse them without important loss than acute care decisions. The latter may require minimal patient participation to realize, are often urgent, and may be irreversible. Given these differences, we explore the applicability of the Charles et al. model of STDM in the chronic care context, especially chronic care that relies heavily on patient self‐management (e.g. diabetes). To apply the Charles et al. model in this clinical context, we suggest the need to emphasize the patient–clinician relationship as one of partners in making difficult treatment choices and to add a new component to the shared decision‐making approach: the need for an ongoing partnership between the clinical team (not just the clinician) and the patient. In the last section of the paper, we explore potential healthcare system barriers to STDM in chronic care delivery. Throughout the discussion we identify areas for further research.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00359.x

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 47 · Cited by 399

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Devereaux PJ, Anderson DR, Gardner MJ et al. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. British Medical Journal, 2001; 323: 1218-1222.
  2. Shared treatment decision-making approach, V M Montori et al. Ó 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation Ó 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Health Expectations, 9, pp.25-36

Authors
Montori, V. M., Gafni, A., & Charles, C.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-01-24
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
25-36
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W2153220542
Cited by
399
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 28
FWCI
25.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
chronic disease, diabetes mellitus, patient-clinician relationship, patient self-management, chronic care, health system barriers, patient participation in treatment decisions
MeSH terms
Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Male, Patient Participation, Self Care

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