Samantha Pollard1, Nick Bansback2, Stirling Bryan3. 1. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada. Electronic address: s.pollard@alumni.ubc.ca. 2. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada. 3. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although evidence suggests that shared decision-making (SDM) can improve patient outcomes, uptake to date has been sparse. The purpose of this review was to determine the reported opinions of physicians regarding the use of SDM in clinical practice and to identify strategies to promote uptake. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, including papers published between 2007 and 2014. RESULTS: The electronic search yielded 11,761 results. Following abstract review, 123 papers were selected for full text review, and 43 papers were included for analysis. Fourteen of the included studies considered SDM within the context of primary care, 25 in secondary care, and 4 in both. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians express positive attitudes toward SDM in clinical practice, although the level of support varies by clinical scenario, treatment decision and patient characteristics. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Physician support for SDM is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition to facilitate meaningful SDM. In order to garner support for SDM, additional empirical evidence regarding the clinical and patient important outcomes must be established. Based on the results of this review, the authors suggest assessing the impact of SDM within the context of chronic disease management where multiple therapeutic options exist, and outcomes may be measured long-term.
OBJECTIVE: Although evidence suggests that shared decision-making (SDM) can improve patient outcomes, uptake to date has been sparse. The purpose of this review was to determine the reported opinions of physicians regarding the use of SDM in clinical practice and to identify strategies to promote uptake. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, including papers published between 2007 and 2014. RESULTS: The electronic search yielded 11,761 results. Following abstract review, 123 papers were selected for full text review, and 43 papers were included for analysis. Fourteen of the included studies considered SDM within the context of primary care, 25 in secondary care, and 4 in both. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians express positive attitudes toward SDM in clinical practice, although the level of support varies by clinical scenario, treatment decision and patient characteristics. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Physician support for SDM is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition to facilitate meaningful SDM. In order to garner support for SDM, additional empirical evidence regarding the clinical and patient important outcomes must be established. Based on the results of this review, the authors suggest assessing the impact of SDM within the context of chronic disease management where multiple therapeutic options exist, and outcomes may be measured long-term.
Authors: Jennifer Elston Lafata; Richard F Brown; Michael P Pignone; Scott Ratliff; L Aubree Shay Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Joschka Haltaufderheide; Sebastian Wäscher; Bernhard Bertlich; Jochen Vollmann; Anke Reinacher-Schick; Jan Schildmann Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-09-06
Authors: Sarguni Singh; Dagoberto Cortez; Douglas Maynard; James F Cleary; Lori DuBenske; Toby C Campbell Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Hilary K Michel; Robert B Noll; Nalyn Siripong; Sandra C Kim; Ellen A Lipstein Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 2.839
Authors: Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Sarah L Goff; Tala R Elia; Errel R Khordipour; Kye E Poronsky; Kelly A Nault; Peter K Lindenauer; Kathleen M Mazor Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Charlotte J Hagerman; Paula G Bellini; Kim M Davis; Richard M Hoffman; David S Aaronson; Daniel Y Leigh; Riley E Zinar; David Penson; Stephen Van Den Eeden; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2017-04-01
Authors: Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Sarah L Goff; Tala R Elia; Errel R Khordipour; Kye E Poronsky; Kelly A Nault; Peter K Lindenauer; Kathleen M Mazor Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 3.451