A shared treatment decision‐making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
The importance of patient-centred care and decision making has been identified in BPS/IC and in chronic condition management generally.
“The importance of patient-centred care and decision making has previously been identified in BPS/IC [44] but also more generally in chronic condition management [48, 49].”
From Cognition, Emotion, and the Bladder: Psychosocial Factors in Bladder Pain Syndrome and Interstitial Cystitis (BPS/IC) (2020) · cites this paper as [48]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
- 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.
- 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)
- ORCID
- Gafni, Amiram
- Venue
- Health Expectations
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-01-24
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-36
- ISSN
- 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
- 1369-7625
- PMC
- PMC5060323
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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