Abstract
Background
Numerous articles and reviews discussed the effects of shared decision making (SDM) on concept-specific and direct outcomes, showing great variety in methodology and results.
Objectives
This scoping review accentuates effects of shared decision making interventions on more distal and distant outcomes related to the healthcare experience of patients and physicians, the economy and treatment parameters.
Eligibility criteria
The search considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs), their secondary analyses and follow-up reports comparing shared decision making interventions against control conditions.
Sources of evidence
MEDLINE (through PubMed) and reference lists of included articles were systematically appraised.
Charting methods
First, relevant outcome effects were extracted following the authors’ conclusions. Second, all outcomes were sorted into one of five different effect levels: individual, interactional, organizational, systemic and clinical.
Results
The search process identified 120 eligible reports, representing 116 randomized controlled trials and four follow-up reports with a variety in research topics, intervention types, outcome measurements and effects.
Most of the 296 extracted outcomes were reported as not affected by shared decision making (205). While some outcomes improved at least slightly (81), few tended to decline (7) or revealed mixed results (3).
Considering the five outcome effect levels, individual and clinical outcomes were reported more frequently than interactional, organizational and systemic ones. However, many individual outcomes could be counted as systemic and vice versa.
Conclusions
Shared decision making can improve distal and distant outcomes depending on the healthcare context. Individual, systemic and clinical outcomes have been more frequently appraised than interactional and organizational ones.
Single database search and limited assessment of articles’ risk of bias and effect size narrow reliability of our results.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Rationale
Shared decision making (SDM) depicts the idea of mutual collaboration between patients and physicians when finding the most suitable treatment. This process involves patients stating their preferences and needs, physicians offering expertise and experience, provision of evidence-based information on benefits and risks of available treatment options and the decision upon subsequent treatment steps (Charles et al. 1997).
On one hand, numerous trials and reviews tackled the effects of SDM on proximal, concept-specific outcomes (Clayman et al. 2016; Martínez-González et al. 2018; Yu et al. 2021) and they are, without doubt, an important goal in healthcare. However, on the other hand, there is criticism that SDM interventions should not only enhance SDM-specific outcomes such as communication and the decision process (Shay and Lafata 2015), but also concept-distal and distant healthcare outcomes. Based on Elwyn’s taxonomy for possible SDM effects (Elwyn et al. 2016), this scoping review hopes to close the gap in distal and distant outcomes to inform clinicians and SDM implementers.
Objectives
First, this review appraises distal and distant outcomes in recent SDM interventions related to patients’ and healthcare providers’ experience of healthcare, the economy and treatment parameters.
Second, it groups all outcomes into one of five different effect levels to demonstrate patterns and potentials in outcome choice for future interventions.
Material and methods
Protocol and registration
All investigators followed a protocol (Supplementary Material 1) that was not – as the review itself – registered beforehand. The review was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist that is depicted in Supplementary Material 5 (Tricco et al. 2018).
Information sources, search and eligibility criteria
The search strategy comprised MEDLINE (through PubMed) and reference lists of included articles.
On one side, search terms were copied from Clayman’s systematic review (Clayman et al. 2016) that considered more general concepts. On the other side, our team created search terms based on patients’ and physicians’ healthcare experience, the economy and treatment parameters (Supplementary Material 2).
The PubMed search limitations were as follows:
Publication year: 2015–2023
Article type: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews (SRs)
Species: Humans
Publication language: English, German
The final search in MEDLINE (through PubMed) happened on 2 March 2023, complemented by handsearching reference lists of identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs). We deliberately considered systematic reviews for the search process to frisk their reference lists for additional sources – yet excluded them from data extraction.
Considering Clayman’s (Clayman et al. 2016) and Elwyn’s (Elwyn et al. 2016) articles as fundamental for this review, ‘recent’ literature is defined as from 2015 onwards. Furthermore, we believe the focus in research before 2015 was less focused on broad scale implementation of complex SDM interventions and some interventions were still in the development phase with distal and distant outcomes less frequently noted.
Selection of sources of evidence
Following the PICO framework (Fig. 1), we considered RCTs asides their follow-up reports and secondary analyses comparing interventions that promote shared decision making between patients and healthcare providers against control groups. Those interventions could be decision aids, decision coaching programmes, training in shared decision making for healthcare providers or patients and multimodal or complex shared decision making interventions. We excluded all interventions that either contained an additional component besides SDM (for instance a new drug) or no SDM at all – such as simple information leaflets or other communication interventions (Table 1).
Two authors (FW and MaDe) independently screened all titles, abstracts and full texts without automation tools. When in doubt, they contacted a third author (FS).
Data charting process and data items
The same two authors (FW and MaDe) extracted relevant data from selected studies without automation tools using predefined forms: first author, publication year, country, study population size, type of SDM intervention and control group, outcome operationalization and outcome effects following the articles’ conclusions.
If the number of randomized patients was not explicitly stated, we chose the number of included participants or combined the intervention and control group numbers by simple addition.
The extraction process considered all primary and secondary outcomes relevant to the healthcare experience of patients and physicians, economic and treatment parameters. Furthermore, each outcome operationalization was stated – questionnaire, surgery rates, etc. – deliberately excluding outcomes specific for shared decision making, the decision making process, communication and the evaluation of interventions.
To indicate outcome effects, we critically appraised the articles’ conclusions and extracted the direction of effect and whether it was reported as statistically significant:
-
↑ Statistically significant improvement
-
(↑) Trend towards improvement
-
↑/Ꝋ Between improvement and no effect
-
Ꝋ No effect
-
↓/Ꝋ Between decline and no effect
-
(↓) Trend towards decline
-
↓ Statistically significant decline
-
Mixed results
Looking at the terms ‘improvement’ and ‘decline’, an increased therapy adherence, screening uptake or reduced resource use represent an improvement, less treatment satisfaction or increased costs a decrease (Supplementary Material 4).
Critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence
Only randomized controlled trials aside their secondary analyses and follow-up reports were included. Owing to the heterogeneity in interventions, outcome operationalization and measurement timepoints, this review uses qualitative instead of quantitative synthesis. We neither verified the reported effect size nor its statistical significance in the body of the text or in the included graphs or tables.
Synthesis of results
First, similar outcome measurements – such as LDL-cholesterol and creatinine as biological markers – were summarized into groups for clarity (Supplementary Material 4).
Second, all extracted outcomes were sorted into one of five predefined effect levels following Elwyn’s idea about four possible levels (Elwyn et al. 2016) – individual, interactional, organizational and systemic – adding the clinical level ourselves as the fifth. Each outcome effect was considered for only one level to maintain clarity and avoid redundance:
-
Individual level: related to individual aspects of patients and healthcare providers.
-
Interactional level: related to the interaction between patients and healthcare providers.
-
Organizational level: related to organizational structures such as medical wards, treatment teams or hospitals.
-
Systemic (healthcare system) level: related to healthcare systems and healthcare distribution in general.
-
Clinical level: related to effect and safety of medical treatments.
Results
Selection of sources of evidence
The search flow diagram following the PRISMA Statement can be found in Fig. 2 (Page et al. 2021). After removing 274 duplicates, the combined search terms resulted in 1471 records. Further removing 1056 of them after title and abstract screening, 415 records were appraised in full text. Of those, 115 records were considered relevant. Splitting them up, four were follow-up reports/secondary analyses (Dehlendorf et al. 2019b; Green et al. 2020; Trenaman et al. 2017, 2020) and 111 randomized controlled trials (Adekpedjou et al. 2020; Agarwal et al. 2018; Alegria et al. 2018; Aljumah and Hassali 2015; Allen et al. 2018; Aoki et al. 2019; Bergeron et al. 2019; Betz et al. 2020; Beulen et al. 2016; Bouleuc et al. 2021; Boulware et al. 2018; Bourmaud et al. 2016; Buhse et al. 2015, 2018; Chabrera et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2021; Chong et al. 2021; Cox et al. 2019; Crew et al. 2022; Dehlendorf et al. 2019a; Dempsey et al. 2018; Den Ouden et al. 2017; Drost et al. 2023; Dwinger et al. 2020; Eggly et al. 2017; El Miedany et al. 2019; Epstein et al. 2017; Fang et al. 2021; Ferron et al. 2015; Fisher et al. 2020; Gabel et al. 2020; Gagné et al. 2017; George et al. 2021; Green et al. 2015; Greenberg et al. 2020; Hamann et al. 2017, 2020; Hanson et al. 2017; Härter et al. 2015, 2016; Henselmans et al. 2020; Hess et al. 2018; Heyland et al. 2020; Hoffman et al. 2017, 2022; Ibrahim et al. 2017; Jayadevappa et al. 2019; Jayakumar et al. 2021; Kang et al. 2020; Karagiannis et al. 2016; Kask-Flight et al. 2021; Kobewka et al. 2021; Korteland et al. 2017; Kostick et al. 2018; Kunneman et al. 2020, 2022; Kuppermann et al. 2020; Lamers et al. 2021; LeBlanc et al. 2015a, b; Lewis et al. 2018; Lin et al. 2020; Lovell et al. 2018; Ludden et al. 2019; Manne et al. 2016; McBride et al. 2016; McGrath et al. 2017; Meade et al. 2015; Metcalfe et al. 2017; Minneci et al. 2019; Moin et al. 2019; Noseworthy et al. 2022; Omaki et al. 2021; O'Malley et al. 2022; Osaka and Nakayama 2017; Parkinson et al. 2018; Patzer et al. 2018; Perestelo-Pérez et al. 2016;Politi et al. 2020a, b; Probst et al. 2020; Rahn et al. 2018; Reder and Kolip 2017; Roberto et al. 2020; Rothwell et al. 2019; Saunier et al. 2020; Schonberg et al. 2020; Schott et al. 2021; Schubart et al. 2019; Sepucha et al. 2023; Singh et al. 2019; Smallwood et al. 2017; Spijk-de Jonge et al. 2022; Stacey et al. 2016; Stamm et al. 2017; Stegmann et al. 2020; Stubenrouch et al. 2022; Tilburgs et al. 2020; Vigod et al. 2019; Vo et al. 2019; Volk et al. 2020; Walczak et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2023; Warner et al. 2015; Watts et al. 2015; Wilkens et al. 2019; Wise et al. 2019; Wollny et al. 2019; Wyld et al. 2021; Yun et al. 2019; Zisman-Ilani et al. 2023).
In addition, five RCTs were identified through citation searching (AlSagheir et al. 2020; Hess et al. 2016; Luan et al. 2016; Malhotra et al. 2020; Pérez-Lacasta et al. 2019). This resulted in a total of 120 included reports. Systematic reviews were excluded from data extraction, but their reference lists screened for evidence.
In a wide variety of research topics, screening, cancer and chronic conditions such as diabetes were the most frequent ones. Most interventions in the 116 randomized controlled trials included decision aids (110) followed by training in shared decision making for healthcare providers (22) or patients (6) and decision coaching (15). The remaining interventions (15) were either special SDM consultation sessions, treatment priority forms, activation cards, worksheets or reports of patients’ preferences to the treating physician. Numerous studies combined several of these interventions.
Characteristics of sources of evidence and results of individual sources of evidence
See Supplementary Material 3 for data extraction results.
Critical appraisal within sources of evidence
Only randomized controlled trials, their follow-up reports and secondary analyses were considered and the authors’ conclusions appraised.
Synthesis of results
Outcome effects
All in- and excluded outcomes can be found in Supplementary Material 4.
We extracted 296 outcome effects and sorted them into 20 different groups.
Of 296 outcome effects, 81 placed between positive trend and statistically significant positive effect, 205 had no effect, 7 a negative trend or statistically significant negative effect and 3 mixed results (Table 2).
Effect levels
Applying the five different effect levels revealed individual (111) and clinical (111) outcome effects being more frequently appraised than interactional (37), systemic (33) and organizational (4) ones (Table 2). It must be noted that numerous individual outcomes could have also been interpreted as systemic outcomes – like patients’ final screening choice represents a form of resource utilization (systemic) apart from the patient’s decision (individual).
Discussion
Summary
This scoping review synthesized 116 randomized controlled trials and four follow-up reports/secondary analyses published between January 2015 and March 2023 comparing SDM interventions against control groups. It demonstrates that most distal and distant outcomes related to patients’ and healthcare providers’ healthcare experience, the economy and treatment parameters are either not affected or affected positively by SDM. Most outcomes relate to individual, systemic or clinical levels – interactional and organizational outcomes have been less frequently evaluated.
Our results for outcome effects are in line with other broad reviews. For instance, Stacey et al. demonstrated no to moderate positive effects on various outcomes in a Cochrane meta-analysis of patient decision aids in 2017 (Stacey et al. 2017).
Looking at possible criticism, Shay et al. stated missing evidence for healthcare outcomes in their systematic review in 2015 (Shay and Lafata 2015) – which we cannot confirm after seven additional years of research.
Finally, when sorting our review into the existing evidence, this is the first attempt to group outcomes on different effect levels to inform future SDM interventions regarding outcome choice. We can confirm, the existing literature about shared decision making interventions seems muddled at times with a great variety in research topics, methodology and results.
Strengths
Strengths of this article are the quantity and broad spectrum of included studies. Furthermore, all included studies are RCTs, increasing the likelihood of reliable data on outcome effects.
Additionally, this scoping review offers a new way of sorting outcome effects on five predefined effect levels following Elwyn’s taxonomy (Elwyn et al. 2016).
Limitations
First, a single database search and missing further appraisal of articles’ quality of evidence (risk of bias etc.) suggest cautious interpretation. However, all studies in this review are RCTs that mostly adhered to the CONSORT criteria and an exact estimate of the magnitude and possible bias of these effects was not intended in our review.
Second, numerous outcomes fit into more than one level – for example, patients’ final screening choice on one hand can be interpreted as individual, on the other hand as systemic. Moreover, sorting mutual outcomes into groups likewise affected the results. For the comprehensive overview in this article, both strategies were necessary and eligible. Our strategy likely reduced the total number of extracted outcomes without changing the general direction in results.
Third, we did not look at proximal effects of SDM interventions. Reasons for declining distal and distant outcome effects might be that SDM does not affect them – or the SDM intervention failed.
Ultimately, the definition of SDM has changed over the past years with high heterogeneity in the beginning. Although the emergence of IPDAS criteria (Stacey and Volk 2021) and the International Shared Decision Making Society funneled the definition of SDM interventions to a more unified understanding, it is debatable at what point interventions should be called shared decision making or informed consent, patient participation, education, and so on. As a consequence, the selection criteria for SDM-interventions in this review should be compared prudently with the existing literature. For the future, shared decision making will most certainly experience constant changes in the underlying definitions – as it did in the past.
Context
Looking at the heterogeneous interventions, clinical settings and conditions, it is difficult to summarize the effects of SDM interventions in a single direction. This is due to different healthcare contexts and baseline resource utilizations rates. For instance, a decision about screening is fundamentally different to one about surgery in acute diseases or medication in chronic conditions. Furthermore, looking at its effects, shared decision making can improve patients’ medication adherence – increasing costs in the first place but probably decreasing complication rates (and thereby long-term costs) subsequently. While a decision aid in Egypt to inform about medication for juvenile arthritis (El Miedany et al. 2019) leads to increased medication use, a decision aid for patients with hip or knee arthrosis in the United States results in reduced total hip and knee replacements (Ibrahim et al. 2017). All these examples depict opposite – yet desirable – effects and highlight the importance of logic models for proper result interpretation.
Conclusion
This article emphasizes distal and distant effects in shared decision making interventions. The existing SDM literature unfolds a broad spectrum of different interventions which hold potential to improve healthcare outcomes. However, those effects seem to depend on the underlying context.
Outcomes on individual, systemic and clinical levels have been more frequently tackled than interactional and organizational ones.
Based on our findings, we suggest future SDM interventions should spot the current state of SDM for their field of interest, create a logic model for result interpretation, estimate the extent of SDM implementation and consider proximal asides distal and distant effects – emphasizing interactional and organizational outcomes more frequently.
Data availability
Article library can be provided upon request. Remaining data published in supplementary materials.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Change history
14 February 2024
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-024-02206-1
24 July 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-02034-9
Abbreviations
- SDM :
-
shared decision making
- RCT :
-
randomized controlled trial
- SR :
-
systematic review
References
Adekpedjou R, Stacey D, Brière N et al (2020) Engaging caregivers in health-related housing decisions for older adults with cognitive impairment: a cluster randomized trial. Gerontologist 60(5):947–957. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz045
Agarwal SD, Kerwin M, Meindertsma J, Wolf AMD (2018) A novel decision aid to encourage smoking cessation among patients at an urban safety net clinic. Prev Chronic Dis. 15:E124. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.180215
Alegria M, Nakash O, Johnson K et al (2018) Effectiveness of the DECIDE interventions on shared decision making and perceived quality of care in behavioral health with multicultural patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiat 75(4):325–335. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4585
Aljumah K, Hassali MA (2015) Impact of pharmacist intervention on adherence and measurable patient outcomes among depressed patients: a randomised controlled study. BMC Psychiat 15:219. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0605-8
Allen LA, McIlvennan CK, Thompson JS et al (2018) Effectiveness of an intervention supporting shared decision making for destination therapy left ventricular assist device: the DECIDE-LVAD randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 178(4):520–529. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8713
AlSagheir AI, Alrowais NA, Alkhudhair BK, AlYousefi NA, Al Sagheir AI, Ali AM, AlMakoshi A (2020) Comparing the use of Arabic decision aid to usual care. A multicenter randomized controlled trial for Arabic speaking metastatic colorectal cancer patients in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J 41(5):499–507. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2020.5.25064
Aoki Y, Takaesu Y, Inoue M et al (2019) Seven-day shared decision making for outpatients with first episode of mood disorders among university students: a randomized controlled trial. Psychiatry Res 281:112531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112531
Bergeron M, Duggins A, Chini B, Ishman SL (2019) Clinical outcomes after shared decision-making tools with families of children with obstructive sleep apnea without tonsillar hypertrophy. Laryngoscope 129(11):2646–2651. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27653
Betz ME, Knoepke CE, Simpson S et al (2020) An interactive web-based lethal means safety decision aid for suicidal adults (lock to live): pilot randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 22(1):e16253. https://doi.org/10.2196/16253
Beulen L, van den Berg M, Faas BH et al (2016) The effect of a decision aid on informed decision-making in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Hum Genet 24(10):1409–1416. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2016.39
Bouleuc C, Savignoni A, Chevrier M et al (2021) A question prompt list for advanced cancer patients promoting advance care planning: a French randomized trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 61(2):331–341.e338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.07.026
Boulware LE, Ephraim PL, Ameling J et al (2018) Effectiveness of informational decision aids and a live donor financial assistance program on pursuit of live kidney transplants in African American hemodialysis patients. BMC Nephrol 19(1):107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-018-0901-x
Bourmaud A, Soler-Michel P, Oriol M et al (2016) Decision aid on breast cancer screening reduces attendance rate: results of a large-scale, randomized, controlled study by the DECIDEO group. Oncotarget 7(11):12885–12892. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.7332
Buhse S, Mühlhauser I, Heller T et al (2015) Informed shared decision-making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 5(11):e009116. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009116
Buhse S, Kuniss N, Liethmann K, Müller UA, Lehmann T, Mühlhauser I (2018) Informed shared decision-making programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 8(12):e024004. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024004
Chabrera C, Zabalegui A, Bonet M et al (2015) A decision aid to support informed choices for patients recently diagnosed with prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Nurs 38(3):E42–E50. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000170
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T (1997) Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 44(5):681–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3
Chen CH, Kang YN, Chiu PY et al (2021) Effectiveness of shared decision-making intervention in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 104(10):2498–2504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.03.002
Chong WQ, Mogro MJ, Arsad A, Tai BC, Lee SC (2021) Use of decision aid to improve informed decision-making and communication with physicians on the use of oral complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among cancer patients on chemotherapy treatment: a randomised controlled trial. Support Care Cancer 29(7):3689–3696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05872-5
Clayman ML, Bylund CL, Chewning B, Makoul G (2016) The impact of patient participation in health decisions within medical encounters: a systematic review. Med Decis Making 36(4):427–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15613530
Cox CE, White DB, Hough CL et al (2019) Effects of a personalized web-based decision aid for surrogate decision makers of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med 170(5):285–297. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-2335
Crew KD, Bhatkhande G, Silverman T, Amenta J, Jones T, McGuinness JE, Mata J, Guzman A, He T, Dimond J, Tsai WY, Kukafka R (2022) Patient and provider web-based decision support for breast cancer chemoprevention: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 15(10):689–700. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-22-0013
Dehlendorf C, Fitzpatrick J, Fox E et al (2019a) Cluster randomized trial of a patient-centered contraceptive decision support tool, My Birth Control. Am J Obstet Gynecol 220(6):565.e561–565.e512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.02.015
Dehlendorf C, Reed R, Fitzpatrick J, Kuppermann M, Steinauer J, Kimport K (2019b) A mixed-methods study of provider perspectives on My Birth Control: a contraceptive decision support tool designed to facilitate shared decision making. Contraception 100(5):420–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2019.08.001
Dempsey AF, Pyrznawoski J, Lockhart S et al (2018) Effect of a health care professional communication training intervention on adolescent human papillomavirus vaccination: a cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr 172(5):e180016. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0016
Den Ouden H, Vos RC, Rutten G (2017) Effectiveness of shared goal setting and decision making to achieve treatment targets in type 2 diabetes patients: a cluster-randomized trial (OPTIMAL). Health Expect 20(5):1172–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12563
Drost LE, Stegeman M, Gerritse MBE, Franx A, Vos MC, SHADE-POP study group, Lamers RED, Ezendam NPM, Dam A, Schrickx J, van Wijk HF (2023 Jan) A web-based decision aid for shared decision making in pelvic organ prolapse: the SHADE-POP trial. Int Urogynecol J 34(1):79–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05405-0
Dwinger S, Rezvani F, Kriston L, Herbarth L, Härter M, Dirmaier J (2020) Effects of telephone-based health coaching on patient-reported outcomes and health behavior change: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 15(9):e0236861. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236861
Eggly S, Hamel LM, Foster TS et al (2017) Randomized trial of a question prompt list to increase patient active participation during interactions with black patients and their oncologists. Patient Educ Couns 100(5):818–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.12.026
El Miedany Y, El Gaafary M, Lotfy H et al (2019) Shared decision-making aid for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: moving from informative patient education to interactive critical thinking. Clin Rheumatol 38(11):3217–3225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-019-04687-y
Elwyn G, Frosch DL, Kobrin S (2016) Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences. Implement Sci 11:114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0480-9
Epstein RM, Duberstein PR, Fenton JJ et al (2017) Effect of a patient-centered communication intervention on oncologist-patient communication, quality of life, and health care utilization in advanced cancer: the VOICE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 3(1):92–100. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4373
Fang SY, Lin PJ, Kuo YL (2021) Long-term effectiveness of a decision support app (Pink Journey) for women considering breast reconstruction surgery: pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 9(12):e31092. https://doi.org/10.2196/31092
Ferron P, Asfour SS, Metsch LR et al (2015) Impact of a multifaceted intervention on promoting adherence to screening colonoscopy among persons in hiv primary care: a pilot study. Clin Transl Sci 8(4):290–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12276
Fisher A, Keast R, Costa D et al (2020) Improving treatment decision-making in bipolar II disorder: a phase II randomised controlled trial of an online patient decision-aid. BMC Psychiatry 20(1):447. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02845-0
Gabel P, Edwards A, Kirkegaard P, Larsen MB, Andersen B (2020) The LEAD trial-The effectiveness of a decision aid on decision making among citizens with lower educational attainment who have not participated in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening in Denmark: a randomised controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 103(2):359–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.029
Gagné ME, Légaré F, Moisan J, Boulet LP (2017) Impact of adding a decision aid to patient education in adults with asthma: a randomized clinical trial. PLoS One 12(1):e0170055. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170055
George M, Bruzzese JM, Lynn SSM et al (2021) Group-randomized trial of tailored brief shared decision-making to improve asthma control in urban black adults. J Adv Nurs 77(3):1501–1517. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14646
Green MJ, Schubart JR, Whitehead MM, Farace E, Lehman E, Levi BH (2015) Advance care planning does not adversely affect hope or anxiety among patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 49(6):1088–1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.11.293
Green MJ, Van Scoy LJ, Foy AJ, Dimmock AEF, Lehman E, Levi BH (2020) Patients with advanced cancer choose less aggressive medical treatment on vignettes after using a computer-based decision aid. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 37(7):537–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909119892596
Greenberg MR, Goodheart V, Jacoby JL et al (2020) Emergency Department Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (ED STEADI) Program. J Emerg Med 59(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.04.019
Hamann J, Parchmann A, Sassenberg N et al (2017) Training patients with schizophrenia to share decisions with their psychiatrists: a randomized-controlled trial. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 52(2):175–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-016-1327-z
Hamann J, Holzhüter F, Blakaj S et al (2020) Implementing shared decision-making on acute psychiatric wards: a cluster-randomized trial with inpatients suffering from schizophrenia (SDM-PLUS). Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 29:e137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796020000505
Hanson LC, Zimmerman S, Song MK et al (2017) Effect of the Goals of Care Intervention for Advanced Dementia: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med 177(1):24–31. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7031
Härter M, Buchholz A, Nicolai J et al (2015) Shared Decision Making and the Use of Decision Aids. Dtsch Arztebl Int 112(40):672–679. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2015.0672
Härter M, Dirmaier J, Dwinger S et al (2016) Effectiveness of telephone-based health coaching for patients with chronic conditions: a randomised controlled trial. PLoS One 11(9):e0161269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161269
Henselmans I, van Laarhoven HWM, van Maarschalkerweerd P et al (2020) Effect of a skills training for oncologists and a patient communication aid on shared decision making about palliative systemic treatment: a randomized clinical trial. Oncologist 25(3):e578–e588. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0453
Hess EP, Hollander JE, Schaffer JT et al (2016) Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial. Bmj 355:i6165. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6165
Hess EP, Homme JL, Kharbanda AB et al (2018) Effect of the head computed tomography choice decision aid in parents of children with minor head trauma: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA Netw Open 1(5):e182430. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.2430
Heyland DK, Heyland R, Bailey A, Howard M (2020) A novel decision aid to help plan for serious illness: a multisite randomized trial. CMAJ Open 8(2):E289–e296. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20190179
Hoffman AS, Lowenstein LM, Kamath GR et al (2017) An entertainment-education colorectal cancer screening decision aid for African American patients: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 123(8):1401–1408. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30489
Hoffmann TC, Jones M, Glasziou P, Beller E, Trevena L, Mar CD (2022) A brief shared decision-making intervention for acute respiratory infections on antibiotic dispensing rates in primary care: a cluster randomized trial. Ann Fam Med 20(1):35–41. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2755
Ibrahim SA, Blum M, Lee GC et al (2017) Effect of a decision aid on access to total knee replacement for black patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 152(1):e164225. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4225
Jayadevappa R, Chhatre S, Gallo JJ et al (2019) Patient-centered preference assessment to improve satisfaction with care among patients with localized prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 37(12):964–973. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.01091
Jayakumar P, Moore MG, Furlough KA et al (2021) Comparison of an artificial intelligence-enabled patient decision aid vs educational material on decision quality, shared decision-making, patient experience, and functional outcomes in adults with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 4(2):e2037107. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37107
Kang E, Lee J, Choo J, Min J, Yun YH (2020) Randomized controlled trial of advance care planning video decision aid for the general population. J Pain Symptom Manage 59(6):1239–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.12.353
Karagiannis T, Liakos A, Branda ME et al (2016) Use of the diabetes medication choice decision aid in patients with type 2 diabetes in Greece: a cluster randomised trial. BMJ Open 6(11):e012185. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012185
Kask-Flight L, Durak K, Suija K, Rätsep A, Kalda R (2021) Reduction of cardiovascular risk factors among young men with hypertension using an interactive decision aid: cluster-randomized control trial. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 21(1):543. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-021-02339-1
Kobewka D, Heyland DK, Dodek P et al (2021) Randomized controlled trial of a decision support intervention about cardiopulmonary resuscitation for hospitalized patients who have a high risk of death. J Gen Intern Med 36(9):2593–2600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-06605-y
Korteland NM, Ahmed Y, Koolbergen DR et al (2017) Does the use of a decision aid improve decision making in prosthetic heart valve selection? a multicenter randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.003178
Kostick KM, Bruce CR, Minard CG et al (2018) A multisite randomized controlled trial of a patient-centered Ventricular Assist Device Decision Aid (VADDA Trial). J Card Fail 24(10):661–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2018.08.008
Kunneman M, Branda ME, Hargraves IG et al (2020) Assessment of shared decision-making for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 180(9):1215–1224. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2908
Kunneman M, Branda ME, Ridgeway JL, Tiedje K, May CR, Linzer M, Inselman J, Buffington ALH, Coffey J, Boehm D, Deming J, Dick S, van Houten H, LeBlanc A, Liesinger J, Lima J, Nordeen J, Pencille L, Poplau S et al (2022) Making sense of diabetes medication decisions: a mixed methods cluster randomized trial using a conversation aid intervention. Endocrine 75(2):377–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-021-02861-4
Kuppermann M, Kaimal AJ, Blat C et al (2020) Effect of a patient-centered decision support tool on rates of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery: The PROCEED randomized clinical trial. JAMA 323(21):2151–2159. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.5952
Lamers RED, Cuypers M, de Vries M, van de Poll-Franse LV, Bosch JLHR, Kil PJM (2021) Differences in treatment choices between prostate cancer patients using a decision aid and patients receiving care as usual: results from a randomized controlled trial. World J Urol 39(12):4327–4333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03782-7
LeBlanc A, Herrin J, Williams MD et al (2015a) Shared decision making for antidepressants in primary care: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA Intern Med 175(11):1761–1770. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5214
LeBlanc A, Wang AT, Wyatt K et al (2015b) Encounter decision aid vs. clinical decision support or usual care to support patient-centered treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial II. PLoS One 10(5):e0128063. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128063
Lewis CL, Kistler CE, Dalton AF et al (2018) A decision aid to promote appropriate colorectal cancer screening among older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Med Decis Making 38(5):614–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X18773713
Lin SC, Tam KW, Yen JY et al (2020) The impact of shared decision making with patient decision aids on the rotavirus vaccination rate in children: a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med 141:106244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106244
Lovell K, Bee P, Brooks H et al (2018) Embedding shared decision-making in the care of patients with severe and enduring mental health problems: the EQUIP pragmatic cluster randomised trial. PLoS One 13(8):e0201533. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201533
Luan A, Hui KJ, Remington AC, Liu X, Lee GK (2016) Effects of a novel decision aid for breast reconstruction: a randomized prospective trial. Ann Plast Surg. 76(Suppl 3):S249–S254. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000722
Ludden T, Shade L, Reeves K et al (2019) Asthma dissemination around patient-centered treatments in North Carolina (ADAPT-NC): a cluster randomized control trial evaluating dissemination of an evidence-based shared decision-making intervention for asthma management. J Asthma 56(10):1087–1098. https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2018.1514630
Malhotra C, Sim D, Jaufeerally FR et al (2020) Impact of a formal advance care planning program on end-of-life care for patients with heart failure: results from a randomized controlled trial. J Card Fail 26(7):594–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2020.01.015
Manne SL, Topham N, D'Agostino TA et al (2016) Acceptability and pilot efficacy trial of a web-based breast reconstruction decision support aid for women considering mastectomy. Psychooncology 25(12):1424–1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3984
Martínez-González NA, Plate A, Senn O, Markun S, Rosemann T, Neuner-Jehle S (2018) Shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening and treatment: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Swiss Med Wkly 148:w14584. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2018.14584
McBride E, Hacking B, O'Carroll R et al (2016) Increasing patient involvement in the diabetic foot pathway: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med 33(11):1483–1492. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13158
McGrath A, Sharpe L, Lah S, Parratt K (2017) Evaluation of a Decision Aid for Women with Epilepsy Who Are Considering Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Med Decis Making 37(5):589–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X17697304
Meade T, Dowswell E, Manolios N, Sharpe L (2015) The motherhood choices decision aid for women with rheumatoid arthritis increases knowledge and reduces decisional conflict: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:260. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0713-0
Metcalfe KA, Dennis CL, Poll A et al (2017) Effect of decision aid for breast cancer prevention on decisional conflict in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: a multisite, randomized, controlled trial. Genet Med 19(3):330–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.108
Minneci PC, Cooper JN, Leonhart K et al (2019) Effects of a patient activation tool on decision making between surgery and nonoperative management for pediatric appendicitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2(6):e195009. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.5009
Moin T, Duru OK, Turk N et al (2019) Effectiveness of shared decision-making for diabetes prevention: 12-month results from the Prediabetes Informed Decision and Education (PRIDE) Trial. J Gen Intern Med. 34(11):2652–2659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05238-6
Noseworthy PA, Branda ME, Kunneman M, Hargraves IG, Sivly AL, Brito JP, Burnett B, Zeballos-Palacios C, Linzer M, Suzuki T, Lee AT, Gorr H, Jackson EA, Hess E, SR B-MC, Shah ND, Montori VM, SDM4AFib (Shared Decision-Making for Atrial Fibrillation) Trial Investigators * (2022) Effect of shared decision-making for stroke prevention on treatment adherence and safety outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Heart Assoc 11(2):e023048. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.023048
Omaki E, Castillo R, McDonald E et al (2021) A patient decision aid for prescribing pain medication: results from a pilot test in two emergency departments. Patient Educ Couns 104(6):1304–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.11.022
O'Malley PG, Jackson JL, Becher D, Hanson J, Lee JK, Grace KA (2022 Feb) Tool to improve patient-provider interactions in adult primary care: randomized controlled pilot study. Can Fam Physician 68(2):e49–e58. https://doi.org/10.46747/cfp.6802e49
Osaka W, Nakayama K (2017) Effect of a decision aid with patient narratives in reducing decisional conflict in choice for surgery among early-stage breast cancer patients: a three-arm randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 100(3):550–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.09.011
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S et al (2021 Mar) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 29(372):n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Parkinson B, Sherman KA, Brown P et al (2018) Cost-effectiveness of the BRECONDA decision aid for women with breast cancer: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology 27(6):1589–1596. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4698
Patzer RE, McPherson L, Basu M et al (2018) Effect of the iChoose Kidney decision aid in improving knowledge about treatment options among transplant candidates: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Transplant 18(8):1954–1965. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14693
Perestelo-Pérez L, Rivero-Santana A, Boronat M et al (2016) Effect of the statin choice encounter decision aid in Spanish patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns 99(2):295–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.08.032
Pérez-Lacasta MJ, Martínez-Alonso M, Garcia M et al (2019) Effect of information about the benefits and harms of mammography on women's decision making: the InforMa randomised controlled trial. PLoS One. 14(3):e0214057. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214057
Politi MC, Grant RL, George NP et al (2020a) Improving Cancer Patients' Insurance Choices (I Can PIC): a randomized trial of a personalized health insurance decision aid. Oncologist 25(7):609–619. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0703
Politi MC, Lee CN, Philpott-Streiff SE et al (2020b) A randomized controlled trial evaluating the BREASTChoice tool for personalized decision support about breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Ann Surg 271(2):230–237. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003444
Probst MA, Lin MP, Sze JJ et al (2020) Shared decision making for syncope in the emergency department: a randomized controlled feasibility trial. Acad Emerg Med 27(9):853–865. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13955
Rahn AC, Köpke S, Backhus I et al (2018) Nurse-led immunotreatment DEcision Coaching In people with Multiple Sclerosis (DECIMS) - feasibility testing, pilot randomised controlled trial and mixed methods process evaluation. Int J Nurs Stud 78:26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.08.011
Reder M, Kolip P (2017) Does a decision aid improve informed choice in mammography screening? Results from a randomised controlled trial. PLoS One 12(12):e0189148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189148
Roberto A, Colombo C, Candiani G et al (2020) A dynamic web-based decision aid to improve informed choice in organised breast cancer screening. A pragmatic randomised trial in Italy. Br J Cancer 123(5):714–721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0935-2
Rothwell E, Johnson E, Wong B et al (2019) The Use of a Game-Based Decision Aid to Educate Pregnant Women about Prenatal Screening: A Randomized Controlled Study. Am J Perinatol 36(3):322–328. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1667371
Saunier F, Berthelot P, Mottet-Auselo B et al (2020) Impact of a decision-aid tool on influenza vaccine coverage among HCW in two French hospitals: A cluster-randomized trial. Vaccine 38(36):5759–5763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.07.011
Schonberg MA, Kistler CE, Pinheiro A et al (2020) Effect of a mammography screening decision aid for women 75 years and older: a cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 180(6):831–842. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0440
Schott SL, Berkowitz J, Dodge SE et al (2021) Personalized, Electronic Health Record-Integrated Decision Aid for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Small Cluster Randomized Trial and Qualitative Analysis of Efficacy and Acceptability. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 14(6):e007329. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.120.007329
Schubart JR, Levi BH, Bain MM, Farace E, Green MJ (2019) Advance care planning among patients with advanced cancer. J Oncol Pract 15(1):e65–e73. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.18.00044
Sepucha KR, Valentine KD, Atlas SJ, Chang Y, Fairfield KM, Ha J, Leavitt L, Lee V, Percac-Lima S, Richter JM, Simmons L (2023 Feb) Getting patients back for routine colorectal cancer screening: Randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making intervention. Cancer Med 12(3):3555–3566. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.5172
Shay LA, Lafata JE (2015) Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making 35(1):114–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14551638
Singh JA, Fraenkel L, Green C et al (2019) Individualized decision aid for diverse women with lupus nephritis (IDEA-WON): A randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med 16(5):e1002800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002800
Smallwood AJ, Schapira MM, Fedders M, Neuner JM (2017) A pilot randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with tailored fracture risk tool delivered via a patient portal. Osteoporos Int 28(2):567–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3767-4
Spijk-de Jonge MJ, Weijers JM, Teerenstra S, Elwyn G, van de Laar MA, van Riel PL, Huis AM, Hulscher ME (2022 May) Patient involvement in rheumatoid arthritis care to improve disease activity-based management in daily practice: a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 105(5):1244–1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.08.013
Stacey D, Volk RJ (2021) The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0. Med Decis Making 41(7):729–733. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X211035681
Stacey D, Taljaard M, Dervin G et al (2016) Impact of patient decision aids on appropriate and timely access to hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 24(1):99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2015.07.024
Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K et al (2017) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4(4):Cd001431. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
Stamm AW, Banerji JS, Wolff EM et al (2017) A decision aid versus shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Can J Urol 24(4):8910–8917
Stegmann ME, Brandenbarg D, Reyners AK, van Geffen WH, Hiltermann TJN, Berendsen AJ (2020) Prioritisation of treatment goals among older patients with non-curable cancer: the OPTion randomised controlled trial in Dutch primary care. Br J Gen Pract 70(696):e450–e456. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20x710405
Stubenrouch FE, Peters LJ, de Mik SML, Klemm PL, Peppelenbosch AG, Schreurs SCWM, Scharn DM, Legemate DA, Balm R, Ubbink DT, OVIDIUS study group (2022) Improving shared decision making in vascular surgery: a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 64(1):73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2022.04.016
Tilburgs B, Koopmans R, Vernooij-Dassen M et al (2020) Educating Dutch general practitioners in dementia advance care planning: a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 21(6):837–842.e834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2019.09.010
Trenaman L, Stacey D, Bryan S et al (2017) Decision aids for patients considering total joint replacement: a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 25(10):1615–1622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2017.05.022
Trenaman L, Stacey D, Bryan S, Payne K, Hawker G, Bansback N (2020) Long-term effect of patient decision aids on use of joint replacement and health care costs. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 28(6):819–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2020.01.019
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W et al (2018) PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 169(7):467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Vigod SN, Hussain-Shamsy N, Stewart DE et al (2019) A patient decision aid for antidepressant use in pregnancy: pilot randomized controlled trial. J Affect Disord 251:91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.01.051
Vo MT, Uratsu CS, Estacio KR et al (2019) Prompting patients with poorly controlled diabetes to identify visit priorities before primary care visits: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med. 34(6):831–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4756-4
Volk RJ, Lowenstein LM, Leal VB et al (2020) Effect of a patient decision aid on lung cancer screening decision-making by persons who smoke: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 3(1):e1920362. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20362
Walczak A, Butow PN, Tattersall MH et al (2017) Encouraging early discussion of life expectancy and end-of-life care: a randomised controlled trial of a nurse-led communication support program for patients and caregivers. Int J Nurs Stud 67:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.10.008
Wang PJ, Lu Y, Mahaffey KW, Lin A, Morin DP, Sears SF, Chung MK, Russo AM, Lin B, Piccini J, Hills MT, Berube C, Pundi K, Baykaner T, Garay G, Lhamo K, Rice E, Pourshams IA, Shah R et al (2023) Randomized clinical trial to evaluate an atrial fibrillation stroke prevention shared decision-making pathway. J Am Heart Assoc 12(3):e028562. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.028562
Warner DO, LeBlanc A, Kadimpati S, Vickers KS, Shi Y, Montori VM (2015) Decision aid for cigarette smokers scheduled for elective surgery. Anesthesiology 123(1):18–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000000704
Watts BV, Schnurr PP, Zayed M, Young-Xu Y, Stender P, Llewellyn-Thomas H (2015) A randomized controlled clinical trial of a patient decision aid for posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatr Serv 66(2):149–154. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400062
Wilkens SC, Ring D, Teunis T, Lee SP, Chen NC (2019) Decision aid for trapeziometacarpal arthritis: a randomized controlled trial. J Hand Surg Am 44(3):247.e241–247.e249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.06.004
Wise MR, Sadler L, Shorten B, van der Westhuizen K, Shorten A (2019) Birth choices for women in a 'Positive Birth after Caesarean' clinic: randomised trial of alternative shared decision support strategies. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 59(5):684–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12955
Wollny A, Altiner A, Daubmann A et al (2019) Patient-centered communication and shared decision making to reduce HbA1c levels of patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus - results of the cluster-randomized controlled DEBATE trial. BMC Fam Pract 20(1):87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-019-0977-9
Wyld L, Reed MWR, Collins K et al (2021) Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: cluster randomized trial of two decision support interventions for older women with operable breast cancer on quality of life, survival, decision quality, and treatment choices. Br J Surg 108(5):499–510. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znab005
Yu L, Yang S, Zhang C, GuoP Zhang X, Xu M, Tian Q, Cui X, Zhang W (2021) Decision aids for prenatal testing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs 77(10):3964–3979. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14875
Yun YH, Kang E, Park S et al (2019) Efficacy of a decision aid consisting of a video and booklet on advance care planning for advanced cancer patients: randomized controlled trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 58(6):940–948.e942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.032
Zisman-Ilani Y, Thompson KD, Siegel LS, Mackenzie T, Crate DJ, Korzenik JR, Melmed GY, Kozuch P, Sands BE, Rubin DT, Regueiro MD, Cross R, Wolf DC, Hanson JS, Schwartz RM, Vrabie R, Kreines MD, Scherer T, Dubinsky MC, Siegel CA (2023) Crohn's disease shared decision making intervention leads to more patients choosing combination therapy: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 57(2):205–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17286
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. All authors except JL are members of the special project SHARE TO CARE funded by the German Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee (NVF170009) and the Medical Faculty of the Kiel University.
While the SHARE TO CARE project received funding, this specific article did not. All members worked on it during their free time. Apart, there is no funding to declare.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
FW as the corresponding author drafted the protocol and manuscript and conducted the search alongside MaDe while FS was available for any uncertainties in the selection or extraction process. The idea for this review and parts of the research protocol relate to FG. MD and CB supported result sorting and interpretation. JL and all other authors contributed relevant parts to the methodology and the manuscript’s revision process.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflicts of interest
None declared.
Disclaimer
All statements reflect the authors’ views and do not refer to the German Federal Joint Committee or the Medical Faculty of Kiel University.
This article was presented at the International Shared Decision Making Conference 2022 in Kolding, Denmark.
Patient and public involvement
None declared.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Plain language summary
Shared decision making depicts the idea of patients and doctors collaboratively finding the treatment that fits the patient most. While numerous former studies looked at what shared decision making does to the decision making process itself and other decision related outcomes, this article looks at more distal and distant outcomes – such as how patients, physicians, the economy and treatment are affected. It does so by systematically searching the online database PubMed and article’s citation lists. Our results reveal most distal and distant outcomes were either not or rather positively affected by shared decision making while few declined. Consequently, this article states shared decision making can be implemented in healthcare with a good chance of improving distal and distant outcomes.
Sorting all outcomes into five different effect levels – individual, interactional, organizational, systemic and clinical – reveals outcomes on individual and clinical levels being more frequently appraised than interactional and organizational ones. For future studies, we suggest keeping these effect levels in mind and shifting focus towards outcomes on interactional and organizational level – like how shared decision making affects the patient–physician-relationship or healthcare teams’ collaboration.
The original online version of this article was revised due to changes in the affiliation of author Marie Debrouwere.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wehking, F., Debrouwere, M., Danner, M. et al. Impact of shared decision making on healthcare in recent literature: a scoping review using a novel taxonomy. J Public Health (Berl.) (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-01962-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-01962-w