Cited by 783Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesHealth Policy Implementation Science

Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice

Légaré, France, Witteman, Holly O.·2013·Health Affairs

Abstract

For many patients, the time spent meeting with their physician-the clinical encounter-is the most opportune moment for them to become engaged in their own health through the process of shared decision making. In the United States shared decision making is being promoted for its potential to improve the health of populations and individual patients, while also helping control care costs. In this overview we describe the three essential elements of shared decision making: recognizing and acknowledging that a decision is required; knowing and understanding the best available evidence; and incorporating the patient's values and preferences into the decision. To achieve the promise of shared decision making, more physicians need training in the approach, and more practices need to be reorganized around the principles of patient engagement. Additional research is also needed to identify the interventions that are most effective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1078

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Légaré, F., & Witteman, H. O.
Affiliations
Université Laval (CA)
Venue
Health Affairs
Published
2013-02
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
276-284
ISSN
  • 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-5208
OpenAlex
W2013667564
Cited by
783
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
shared decision-making, patient engagement, clinical adoption, implementation barriers, physician training, patient values and preferences, evidence-based medicine, patient-centered care, health care costs
MeSH terms
Cost Control, Decision Making, Delivery of Health Care, Education, Medical, Continuing, Health Policy, Humans, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Evidence-Based Medicine, 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