The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Implementing shared decision making in the NHS: lessons from the MAGIC programme
Open accessAbstract
Shared decision making requires a shift in attitudes at all levels but can become part of routine practice with the right support, say Natalie Joseph-Williams and colleagues Adoption of shared decision making into routine practice has been remarkably slow, despite 40 years of research and considerable policy support.12345678 In 2010, the Health Foundation in the UK commissioned the MAGIC (Making Good Decisions in Collaboration) programme to design, test, and identify the best ways to embed shared decision making into routine primary and secondary care using quality improvement methods (box 1).910 #### Box 1: Summary of MAGIC programme ##### Phase 1 (August 2010–February 2012): Designing and testing the best ways to implement shared decision making in routine clinical settings Clinical areas ##### Phase 2 (February 2012–October 2013): Demonstrate that shared decision making can become part of routine clinical care (wider dissemination, implementation and sustainability) and build practical and transferable knowledge about the conditions for success Cardiff Newcastle
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
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-citationImplementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalization Process Theory
May, C., & Finch, T. (2009) · Sociology · doi:10.1177/0038038509103208 · Cited by 2,115
Légaré, 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
Cited by
May, C. R., Cummings, A., Girling, M., Bracher, M., Mair, F. S., May, C. M., Murray, E., Myall, M., Rapley, T., & Finch, T. (2018) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1 · Cited by 683
Shared decision aids in pregnancy care: A scoping review
Kennedy, K., Adelson, P., Fleet, J., Steen, M., McKellar, L., Eckert, M., & Peters, M. D. J. (2020) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2019.102589 · Cited by 50
Co-designing a theory-informed intervention to increase shared decision-making in maternity care
Waddell, A., Spassova, G., Sampson, L., Jungbluth, L., Dam, J., & Bragge, P. (2023) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-023-00959-x · Cited by 20
Sultana, J., Sutradhar, I., Rahman, M. J., Khan, A. N. S., Chowdhury, M. A. K., Hasib, E., Chhetri, C., Mahmud, S. M. H., Kashem, T., Kumar, S., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19031465 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Edwards, A., Stobbart, L., Tomson, D., Macphail, S., Dodd, C., Brain, K., Elwyn, G., & Thomson, R.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2017-04-18
- Volume
- 357
- Pages
- j1744
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- OpenAlex
- W2606735214
- Cited by
- 475
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 68.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Implementing shared decision making in the NHS: lessons from the MAGIC programme. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.j1744
- The paper
- Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Edwards, A., Stobbart, L., Tomson, D., Macphail, S., Dodd, C., Brain, K., Elwyn, G., & Thomson, R. (2017). Implementing shared decision making in the NHS: lessons from the MAGIC programme. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1744
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.
