Literature DB >> 10606197

Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions.

D L Frosch1, R M Kaplan.   

Abstract

CONTENT: Shared medical decision making is a process by which patients and providers consider outcome probabilities and patient preferences and reach a health care decision based on mutual agreement. Shared decision making is best used for problems involving medical uncertainty. During the process the provider-patient dyad considers treatment options and consequences and explores the fit of expected benefits and consequences of treatment with patient preferences for various outcomes. This paper reviews the literature on shared medical decision making. Several questions are considered. Although several studies suggest that patients do not want to be involved in decision making, these studies typically fail to separate decisions about technical aspects of treatment from preferences for outcomes. There is considerable evidence that patients want to be consulted about the impact of treatment. Studies on the acceptability of shared decision making for physicians have produced inconsistent results. Shared decision making is more acceptable to younger and better-educated patients. It remains unclear whether shared decision making requires expensive video presentations or whether the same results can be obtained with simpler methods, such as the decision board. We conclude that shared medical decision making is an important development in health care. More research is necessary to identify the effects of shared decision making on patient satisfaction and health outcomes. Further, more research is necessary in order to evaluate the most effective methods for engaging patients in decisions about their own health care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10606197     DOI: 10.1016/s0749-3797(99)00097-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  165 in total

1.  Adaptive leadership: a novel approach for family decision making.

Authors:  Judith Adams; Donald E Bailey; Ruth A Anderson; Anthony N Galanos
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2012-06-04       Impact factor: 2.947

Review 2.  The significance of quality of life in health care.

Authors:  Robert M Kaplan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Doctors in a wired world: can professionalism survive connectivity?

Authors:  David Blumenthal
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.911

4.  The use of multi-criteria decision analysis weight elicitation techniques in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study.

Authors:  Janine A van Til; James G Dolan; Anne M Stiggelbout; Karin C G M Groothuis; Maarten J Ijzerman
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Physicians' attitudes about communicating and managing scientific uncertainty differ by perceived ambiguity aversion of their patients.

Authors:  David B Portnoy; Paul K J Han; Rebecca A Ferrer; William M P Klein; Steven B Clauser
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Concordance between patient satisfaction and the dentist's view: findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Joseph L Riley; Valeria V Gordan; Susan E Hudak-Boss; Jeffery L Fellows; D Brad Rindal; Gregg H Gilbert
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.634

7.  Does physician communication style impact patient report of decision quality for breast cancer treatment?

Authors:  Kathryn A Martinez; Ken Resnicow; Geoffrey C Williams; Marlene Silva; Paul Abrahamse; Dean A Shumway; Lauren P Wallner; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2016-06-22

Review 8.  Patient health incentives: ethical challenges and frameworks.

Authors:  Eran P Klein
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2014-12

9.  Shared Decision Making in Patients With Suspected Uncomplicated Ureterolithiasis: A Decision Aid Development Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Connor Houghton; Pooja M Patel; Leanora W Merwin; Kye P Poronsky; Anna L Caroll; Carol Sánchez Santana; Maggie Breslin; Charles D Scales; Peter K Lindenauer; Kathleen M Mazor; Erik P Hess
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2020-02-16       Impact factor: 3.451

10.  Prediction of health professionals' intention to screen for decisional conflict in clinical practice.

Authors:  France Légaré; Ian D Graham; Annette C O'Connor; Michèle Aubin; Lucie Baillargeon; Yvan Leduc; Jean Maziade
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.