Literature DB >> 14706973

A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent.

Simon N Whitney1, Amy L McGuire, Laurence B McCullough.   

Abstract

Enhancing patient choice is a central theme of medical ethics and law. Informed consent is the legal process used to promote patient autonomy; shared decision making is a widely promoted ethical approach. These processes may most usefully be seen as distinct in clinically and ethically important respects. The approach outlined in this article uses a model that arrays all medical decisions along 2 axes: risk and certainty. At the extremes of these continua, 4 decision types are produced, each of which constrains the principal actors in predictable ways. Shared decision making is most appropriate in situations of uncertainty, in which 2 or more clinically reasonable alternatives exist. When there is only 1 realistic choice, patient and physician may gather and exchange information; however, the patient cannot be empowered to make choices that do not exist. In contrast, informed consent does not require the presence of clinical choice; it is appropriate for all decisions of significant risk, even if there is only one option. When a clinical decision contains both risk and uncertainty, shared decision making and informed consent are both appropriate. For decisions of lower risk, consent should still be present, but it can be simple rather than informed. Clinicians may use this analysis as a guide to their own interactions with patients. In the continuing effort to provide patients with appropriate decisional authority over their own medical choices, shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent each has a distinct role to play.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14706973     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-1-200401060-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  90 in total

1.  Concordance of couples' prostate cancer screening recommendations from a decision analysis.

Authors:  Scott B Cantor; Robert J Volk; Murray D Krahn; Alvah R Cass; Jawaria Gilani; Susan C Weller; Stephen J Spann
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Sports medicine and ethics.

Authors:  Daniela Testoni; Christoph P Hornik; P Brian Smith; Daniel K Benjamin; Ross E McKinney
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 11.229

3.  Cancer patients' fears related to clinical trial participation: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Gwendolyn P Quinn; Alexis Koskan; Kristen J Wells; Luis E Gonzalez; Cathy D Meade; Christie L Pratt Pozo; Paul B Jacobsen
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Neeraj K Arora
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence.

Authors:  Patrick Loisel; Rachelle Buchbinder; Rowland Hazard; Robert Keller; Inger Scheel; Maurits van Tulder; Barbara Webster
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2005-12

6.  Shared decision-making: the debate continues.

Authors:  Angela Coulter
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Views of patients with heart failure about their role in the decision to start implantable cardioverter defibrillator treatment: prescription rather than participation.

Authors:  Anders Agård; Rurik Löfmark; Nils Edvardsson; Inger Ekman
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  Communication and decision making in cancer care: setting research priorities for decision support/patients' decision aids.

Authors:  Amber E Barnato; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Ellen M Peters; Laura Siminoff; E Dale Collins; Michael J Barry
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: associations with cancer-related perceptions and behaviours in a US population survey.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Richard P Moser; William M P Klein
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 10.  Recent advances in shared decision making for mental health.

Authors:  Sapana R Patel; Suzanne Bakken; Cornelia Ruland
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychiatry       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.741

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.