The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards a feasible model for shared decision making: focus group study with general practice registrars
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Objectives: To explore the views of general practice registrars about involving patients in decisions and to assess the feasibility of using the shared decision making model by means of simulated general practice consultations. Design: Qualitative study based on focus group interviews. Setting: General practice vocational training schemes in south Wales. Participants: 39 general practice registrars and eight course organisers (acting as observers) attended four sessions; three simulated patients attended each time. Method: After an introduction to the principles and suggested stages of shared decision making the registrars conducted and observed a series of consultations about choices of treatment with simulated patients using verbal, numerical, and graphical data formats. Reactions were elicited by using focus group interviews after each consultation and content analysis undertaken. Results: Registrars in general practice report not being trained in the skills required to involve patients in clinical decisions. They had a wide range of opinions about “involving patients in decisions,” ranging from protective paternalism (“doctor knows best”), through enlightened self interest (lightening the load), to the potential rewards of a more egalitarian relationship with patients. The work points to three contextual precursors for the process: the availability of reliable information, appropriate timing of the decision making process, and the readiness of patients to accept an active role in their own management. Conclusions: Sharing decisions entails sharing the uncertainties about the outcomes of medical processes and involves exposing the fact that data are often unavailable or not known; this can cause anxiety to both patient and clinician. Movement towards further patient involvement will depend on both the skills and the attitudes of professionals, and this work shows the steps that need to be taken if further progress is to be made in this direction. Key messages Involvement of patients in decisions about their treatment or care is increasingly advocated Registrars in general practice report not receiving training in the skills needed for successful involvement of patients in decision making Attitudes towards involving patients range from being highly positive to being more circumspect Moves towards enhancing patient involvement in decision making will depend on developing both skills and attitudes of professionals
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
Focus Groups as Qualitative Research
Morgan, D. (1997) · doi:10.4135/9781412984287 · Cited by 8,863
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137 · cited 1×
“A paternalistic approach involves taking the responsibility for decision making. Informed choice is at the opposite end of the spectrum, where the patient is provided with “sufficient” information and the clinician withdraws from the decision process. Shared decision making describes the middle ground.”
BackgroundFocus Groups as Qualitative Research
Kawamura, H., & Morgan, D. L. (1998) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/330238 · Cited by 2,800
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
Patient participation in decision-making
Guadagnoli, E., & Ward, P. (1998) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00059-8 · Cited by 796
(2000) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 737
Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation.
Elwyn, G. J., Edwards, A., & Kinnersley, P. (1999) · PubMed Central · Cited by 499
Self-citationGafni, A., Charles, C., & Whelan, T. (1998) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00091-4 · Cited by 272
Some Issues Arising in the Systematic Analysis of Focus Group Materials
Frankland, J., & Bloor, M. (1999) · Developing Focus Group Research · doi:10.4135/9781849208857.n10 · Cited by 170
Gwyn, R., & Elwyn, G. (1999) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00067-2 · Cited by 158
Self-citation
Cited by
Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., Cording, E., Tomson, D., Dodd, C., Rollnick, S., et al. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6 · Cited by 4,405
Self-citationLégaré, F., Ratté, S., Gravel, K., & Graham, I. D. (2008) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.018 · Cited by 1,321
Gravel, K., Légaré, F., & Graham, I. D. (2006) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-1-16 · Cited by 755
(2000) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 737
Coulter, A. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7212.719 · Cited by 657
Metadata
- Authors
- Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Gwyn, R., & Grol, R.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1999-09-18
- Volume
- 319
- Issue
- 7212
- Pages
- 753-756
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2169989700
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 43.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Towards a feasible model for shared decision making: focus group study with general practice registrars. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.753
- The paper
- Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Gwyn, R., & Grol, R. (1999). Towards a feasible model for shared decision making: focus group study with general practice registrars. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.753
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.