Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 299

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 access
Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Gwyn, R., Grol, R.·1999·BMJ

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.753

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 15 references

Cited by

See all 299

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.