Cited by 132Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesMental Health and Patient Involvement

Importance of clarifying patients' desired role in shared decision making to match their level of engagement with their preferences

Open access
Politi, M. C., Dizon, D. S., Frosch, D. L., Kuzemchak, M. D., Stiggelbout, A. M.·2013·BMJ

Abstract

We should not assume that certain groups of patients don’t want to or can’t participate in decisions about their healthcare, say Mary Politi and colleagues, and they offer advice on how to determine how much patients want to be involved

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.f7066

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • If used appropriately, explainable AI decision support systems may contribute to patients feeling more knowledgeable and better informed and may promote more accurate risk perceptions.

    “If used appropriately, explainable AI decision support systems may not only contribute to patients feeling more knowledgeable and better informed but could also promote more accurate risk perceptions [34, 35].”
  • By simulating the impact of different treatment or lifestyle interventions, an explainable AI decision aid could help raise patients' choice awareness and support clinicians in eliciting patient values and preferences.

    “By simulating the impact of different treatment or lifestyle interventions, an explainable AI decision aid could help to raise patients’ choice awareness and support clinicians in eliciting patient values and preferences [34].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 20 Caldon LJ, Collins KA, Reed MW, Sivell S, Austoker J, Clements AM, et al. Clinicians' concerns about decision support interventions for patients facing breast cancer surgery options: understanding the challenge of implementing shared decision-making. Health Affairs 2011;14:133-46.
  2. 22 Wrede-Sach J, Voigt I, Diederichs-Egidi H, Hummers-Pradier E, Dierks ML, Junius-Walker U. Decision-making of older patients in context of the doctor-patient relationship: a typology ranging from "self-determined" to "doctor-trusting" patients. Int J Fam Med 2013;2013:10.
  3. 25 Janz NK, Wren PA, Copeland LA, Lowery JC, Goldfarb SL, Wilkins EG. Patient-physician conns r t sr e sn sd cal decision. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3091-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Politi, M. C., Dizon, D. S., Frosch, D. L., Kuzemchak, M. D., & Stiggelbout, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Palo Alto Medical Foundation (US)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Politi, M. C.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-12-02
Volume
347
Issue
dec02 1
Pages
f7066-f7066
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2104433218
Cited by
132
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11
FWCI
18.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
shared decision-making, patient preferences, patient engagement, patient involvement in treatment decisions
MeSH terms
Communication, Decision Making, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Patient Preference

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