The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting. Design: Systematic review. Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM. Information sources: Academic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019. Results: Forty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall, Describe treatment options was the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were:Make the decision (75%),Patient preferences (65%),Tailor information (65%),Deliberate (58%), Create choice awareness (55%), and Learn about the patient(53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time,Describe treatment options and Make the decision are the two components which are present in most models in any time period.Create choice awareness stood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time. Conclusions: This review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration CRD42015019740
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
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1999) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00145-8 · Cited by 2,333
An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters
Makoul, G., & Clayman, M. L. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010 · Cited by 1,621
Joseph-Williams, N., Elwyn, G., & Edwards, A. (2014) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.10.031 · Cited by 1,242
A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process
Elwyn, G., Durand, M. A., Song, J., Aarts, J., Barr, P. J., Berger, Z., Cochran, N., Frosch, D., Galasiński, D., Gulbrandsen, P., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j4891 · Cited by 1,018
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare
Stiggelbout, A. M., Weijden, T. V. D., Wit, M. P. T. D., Frosch, D., Legare, F., Montori, V. M., Trevena, L., & Elwyn, G. (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e256 · Cited by 1,014
Self-citationShared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice
Stiggelbout, A. M., Pieterse, A. H., & De Haes, J. C. J. M. (2015) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.022 · Cited by 944
Self-citation(2000) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 737
Towle, A., Godolphin, W., Greenhalgh, T., & Gambrill, J. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7212.766 · Cited by 646
Cited by
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n160 · Cited by 13,262
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., mulrow, C., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J., Akl, E., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2020) · doi:10.31222/osf.io/gwdhk · Cited by 916
The European Insomnia Guideline: An update on the diagnosis and treatment of insomnia 2023
Riemann, D., Espie, C. A., Altena, E., Arnardottir, E. S., Baglioni, C., Bassetti, C. L. A., Bastien, C., Berzina, N., Bjorvatn, B., Dikeos, D., et al. (2023) · Journal of Sleep Research · doi:10.1111/jsr.14035 · Cited by 834
Cook, D. A., Overgaard, J., Pankratz, V. S., Del Fiol, G., & Aakre, C. A. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/68486 · Cited by 96
Warner, B. E., Lound, A., Grailey, K., Vindrola-Padros, C., Wells, M., & Brett, S. J. (2023) · eClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102144 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Bomhof-Roordink, H., Gärtner, F. R., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Pieterse, A. H.
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e031763
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2995551433
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 7.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763
- The paper
- Bomhof-Roordink, H., Gärtner, F. R., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Pieterse, A. H. (2019). Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763
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.
