Shared decision-making: enhancing the clinical relevance

V. A. Entwistle, A. Cribb, I. S. Watt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated to enable patients to participate in decisions that affect them, to protect patients from insufficiently individualized supply-driven care, and to reduce health care costs and waste by avoiding the provision of unwanted interventions.1–3
The concept of shared decision-making can be understood in several ways. A number of definitions and descriptive models have been offered, emphasizing different aspects of clinician-patient interaction and decision-making.4 Most definitions and models can be variously interpreted when considered in relation to the complex realities of healthcare provision. Clinicians' understandings of shared decision-making can have important implications for clinical practice.5 They can diverge, for example, over questions of whether, when and how it is appropriate to recommend a particular treatment or challenge a patient's expressed preferences.
This paper considers the practical and ethical implications of, ‘narrow’ and ‘broader’ ways of thinking about shared decision-making. It illustrates how narrow understandings of shared decision-making, which focus on informing patients so they can choose between options, can make it hard for many patients to share meaningfully in decision-making that affects them. It then outlines how broader understandings, which allow for more clinician influence and extend the relevance of shared decision-making to diverse situations, can be justified in principle and appraised for appropriateness.
Table 1 compares the key features of narrow and broader understandings of shared decision-making.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)416-421
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Supplement
Volume105
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2012

Fingerprint

Decision Making
Patient Preference
Health Care Costs
Delivery of Health Care

Cite this

Shared decision-making : enhancing the clinical relevance. / Entwistle, V. A.; Cribb, A.; Watt, I. S.

In: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Supplement, Vol. 105, No. 10, 10.2012, p. 416-421.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Entwistle, V. A. ; Cribb, A. ; Watt, I. S. / Shared decision-making : enhancing the clinical relevance. In: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Supplement. 2012 ; Vol. 105, No. 10. pp. 416-421.
@article{f860f6fb198d4ec48b8e294e2e26651e,
title = "Shared decision-making: enhancing the clinical relevance",
abstract = "Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated to enable patients to participate in decisions that affect them, to protect patients from insufficiently individualized supply-driven care, and to reduce health care costs and waste by avoiding the provision of unwanted interventions.1–3The concept of shared decision-making can be understood in several ways. A number of definitions and descriptive models have been offered, emphasizing different aspects of clinician-patient interaction and decision-making.4 Most definitions and models can be variously interpreted when considered in relation to the complex realities of healthcare provision. Clinicians' understandings of shared decision-making can have important implications for clinical practice.5 They can diverge, for example, over questions of whether, when and how it is appropriate to recommend a particular treatment or challenge a patient's expressed preferences.This paper considers the practical and ethical implications of, ‘narrow’ and ‘broader’ ways of thinking about shared decision-making. It illustrates how narrow understandings of shared decision-making, which focus on informing patients so they can choose between options, can make it hard for many patients to share meaningfully in decision-making that affects them. It then outlines how broader understandings, which allow for more clinician influence and extend the relevance of shared decision-making to diverse situations, can be justified in principle and appraised for appropriateness.Table 1 compares the key features of narrow and broader understandings of shared decision-making.",
author = "Entwistle, {V. A.} and A. Cribb and Watt, {I. S.}",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1258/jrsm.2012.120039",
language = "English",
volume = "105",
pages = "416--421",
journal = "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Supplement",
issn = "0267-5331",
publisher = "Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shared decision-making

T2 - enhancing the clinical relevance

AU - Entwistle, V. A.

AU - Cribb, A.

AU - Watt, I. S.

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated to enable patients to participate in decisions that affect them, to protect patients from insufficiently individualized supply-driven care, and to reduce health care costs and waste by avoiding the provision of unwanted interventions.1–3The concept of shared decision-making can be understood in several ways. A number of definitions and descriptive models have been offered, emphasizing different aspects of clinician-patient interaction and decision-making.4 Most definitions and models can be variously interpreted when considered in relation to the complex realities of healthcare provision. Clinicians' understandings of shared decision-making can have important implications for clinical practice.5 They can diverge, for example, over questions of whether, when and how it is appropriate to recommend a particular treatment or challenge a patient's expressed preferences.This paper considers the practical and ethical implications of, ‘narrow’ and ‘broader’ ways of thinking about shared decision-making. It illustrates how narrow understandings of shared decision-making, which focus on informing patients so they can choose between options, can make it hard for many patients to share meaningfully in decision-making that affects them. It then outlines how broader understandings, which allow for more clinician influence and extend the relevance of shared decision-making to diverse situations, can be justified in principle and appraised for appropriateness.Table 1 compares the key features of narrow and broader understandings of shared decision-making.

AB - Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated to enable patients to participate in decisions that affect them, to protect patients from insufficiently individualized supply-driven care, and to reduce health care costs and waste by avoiding the provision of unwanted interventions.1–3The concept of shared decision-making can be understood in several ways. A number of definitions and descriptive models have been offered, emphasizing different aspects of clinician-patient interaction and decision-making.4 Most definitions and models can be variously interpreted when considered in relation to the complex realities of healthcare provision. Clinicians' understandings of shared decision-making can have important implications for clinical practice.5 They can diverge, for example, over questions of whether, when and how it is appropriate to recommend a particular treatment or challenge a patient's expressed preferences.This paper considers the practical and ethical implications of, ‘narrow’ and ‘broader’ ways of thinking about shared decision-making. It illustrates how narrow understandings of shared decision-making, which focus on informing patients so they can choose between options, can make it hard for many patients to share meaningfully in decision-making that affects them. It then outlines how broader understandings, which allow for more clinician influence and extend the relevance of shared decision-making to diverse situations, can be justified in principle and appraised for appropriateness.Table 1 compares the key features of narrow and broader understandings of shared decision-making.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84868283493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1258/jrsm.2012.120039

DO - 10.1258/jrsm.2012.120039

M3 - Article

VL - 105

SP - 416

EP - 421

JO - Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Supplement

JF - Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Supplement

SN - 0267-5331

IS - 10

ER -