The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Health care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; particularly for older people with complex needs. The aim of this review was to provide a context relevant understanding of how interventions to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs, and how they might be applied in integrated care models. METHODS: Iterative, stakeholder driven, realist synthesis following RAMESES publication standards. It involved: 1) scoping literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, 2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories, and 3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11). We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google, Google Scholar, and undertook lateral searches. All types of evidence were included. RESULTS: We included 88 papers; 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four context-mechanism-outcome configurations that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs. This includes: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care, organising systems to support and prioritise SDM, supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that allow older people to feel that they are respected and understood, and that engender confidence to engage in SDM. CONCLUSIONS: To embed SDM in practice requires a radical shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers will need support to change their professional behaviour and to better organise and deliver services. Face to face interactions, permission and space to discuss options, and continuity of patient-professional relationships are key in supporting older people with complex needs to engage in SDM. Future research needs to focus on inter-professional approaches to SDM and how families and carers are involved.
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
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
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
Shared decision making — The pinnacle of patient-centered care
Barry, M. J., & Edgman-Levitan, S. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1109283 · Cited by 3,433
Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions
Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819054308530 · Cited by 3,190
Pawson, R. (2006) · doi:10.4135/9781849209120 · Cited by 1,791
RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-21 · Cited by 1,374
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
Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations
Dwamena, F., Holmes-Rovner, M., Gaulden, C. M., Jorgenson, S., Sadigh, G., Sikorskii, A., Lewin, S., Smith, R. C., Coffey, J., Olomu, A., et al. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003267.pub2 · Cited by 1,227
Where Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes
Shay, L. A., & Lafata, J. E. (2015) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x14551638 · Cited by 1,214
Cited by
Masterson, D., Areskoug Josefsson, K., Robert, G., Nylander, E., & Kjellström, S. (2022) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13470 · Cited by 281
Svensson, A., Bremer, A., Rantala, A., Andersson, H., Devenish, S., Williams, J., & Holmberg, M. (2022) · International Journal of Older People Nursing · doi:10.1111/opn.12423 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Bunn, F., Goodman, C., Russell, B., Wilson, P., Manthorpe, J., Rait, G., Hodkinson, I., & Durand, M.-A.
- Venue
- BMC Geriatrics
- Published
- 2018-07-18
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 165-165
- ISSN
- 1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2884179549
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 27.51
- 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: Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12877-018-0853-9
- The paper
- Bunn, F., Goodman, C., Russell, B., Wilson, P., Manthorpe, J., Rait, G., Hodkinson, I., & Durand, M.-A. (2018). Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis. BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0853-9
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.