Skip to main content
Log in

Patients’ Perceptions of Sharing in Decisions

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Enhance Shared Decision Making in Routine Clinical Practice

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Shared decision making is the process in which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the health professional and the patient. Little is known about what patients view as effective or ineffective strategies to implement shared decision making in routine clinical practice.

Objective: This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of interventions to improve health professionals’ adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice, as seen by patients.

Data Sources: We searched electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) from their inception to mid-March 2009. We found additional material by reviewing the reference lists of the studies found in the databases; systematic reviews of studies on shared decision making; the proceedings of various editions of the International Shared Decision Making Conference; and the transcripts of the Society for Medical Decision Making’s meetings.

Study Selection: In our study selection, we included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses in which patients evaluated interventions to improve health professionals’ adoption of shared decision making. The interventions in question consisted of the distribution of printed educational material; educational meetings; audit and feedback; reminders; and patient-mediated initiatives (e.g. patient decision aids).

Study Appraisal: Two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data. Statistical analyses considered categorical and continuous process measures. We computed the standardized effect size for each outcome at the 95% confidence interval. The primary outcome of interest was health professionals’ adoption of shared decision making as reported by patients in a self-administered questionnaire.

Results: Of the 6764 search results, 21 studies reported 35 relevant comparisons. Overall, the quality of the studies ranged from 0% to 83%. Only three of the 21 studies reported a clinically significant effect for the primary outcome that favored the intervention. The first study compared an educational meeting and a patient-mediated intervention with another patient-mediated intervention (median improvement of 74%). The second compared an educational meeting, a patient-mediated intervention, and audit and feedback with an educational meeting on an alternative topic (improvement of 227%). The third compared an educational meeting and a patient-mediated intervention with usual care (p = 0.003). All three studies were limited to the patient-physician dyad.

Limitations: To reduce bias, future studies should improve methods and reporting, and should analyze costs and benefits, including those associated with training of health professionals.

Conclusions: Multifaceted interventions that include educating health professionals about sharing decisions with patients and patient-mediated interventions, such as patient decision aids, appear promising for improving health professionals’ adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice as seen by patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Fig. 1
Table II
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kiesler DJ, Auerbach SM. Optimal matches of patient preferences for information, decision-making and interpersonal behavior: evidence, models and interventions. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 61(3): 319–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hack TF, Degner LF, Watson P, et al. Do patients benefit from participating in medical decision making? Longitudinal follow-up of women with breast cancer. Psychooncology 2006; 15(1): 9–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 3: CD001431

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Coulter A, Ellins J. Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. BMJ 2007; 335(7609): 24–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Weston WW. Informed and shared decision-making: the crux of patient-centered care. CMAJ 2001; 165(4): 438–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997; 44(5): 681–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49(5): 651–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 60(3): 301–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brouwers M, Stacey D, O’Connor A. Knowledge creation: synthesis, tools and products. CMAJ 2010; 182(2): E68–72

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Evans R, Edwards A, Brett J, et al. Reduction in uptake of PSA tests following decision aids: systematic review of current aids and their evaluations. Patient Educ Couns 2005; 58(1): 13–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. O’Connor AM, Bennett C, Stacey D, et al. Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the international patient decision aid standards collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Making 2007; 27(5): 554–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wennberg JE. Practice variation: implications for our health care system. Manag Care 2004; 13(9 Suppl.): 3–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Coulter A. Engaging patients in their healthcare: how is the UK doing relative to other countries. Oxford: Picker Institute Europe, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bensing J. Bridging the gap: the separate worlds of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered medicine. Patient Educ Couns 2000; 39: 17–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Charles C, Gafni A, Freeman E. Implementing shared decision making and treatment decision aids: a cautionary tale. Psicooncologica 2010; 7(2–3): 243–55

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2(2): 112–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Edwards A, Elwyn G. Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision. Health Expect 2006; 9(4): 307–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Guimond P, Bunn H, Edwards A, et al. Validation of a tool to assess health practitioners’ decision support and communication skills. Patient Educ Couns 2003; 50(3): 235–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, et al. The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect 2005; 8(1): 34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gagnon S, Labreque M, Njoya M, et al. How much do family physicians involve pregnant women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome? Prenat Diagn 2010; 30(2): 115–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Siriwardena AN, Edwards AG, Campion P, et al. Involve the patient and pass the MRCGP: investigating shared decision making in a consulting skills examination using a validated instrument. Br J Gen Pract 2006; 56(532): 857–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Légaré F, Ratté S, Stacey D, et al. Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 5: CD006732

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Saba GW, Wong ST, Schillinger D, et al. Shared decision making and the experience of partnership in primary care. Ann Fam Med 2006; 4(1): 54–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, et al. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract 2000; 49(9): 796–804

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Elwyn G, Edwards A. Proceedings of the 2nd International Shared Decision Making Conference; 2003 Sep 2–4; Swansea [online]. Available from URL: http://204.187.39.28/isdm2005/SDM_Conference_2003_Book.pdf [Accessed 2011 Oct 31]

  26. O’Connor A, Graham I. Implementing shared decision making in diverse health care systems and cultures: programs and abstracts. Proceedings of the 3rd International Shared Decision Making Conference; 2005 Jun 14–16; Ottawa (ON) [online]. Available from URL: http://decisionaid.ohri.ca:8080/ISDM2005/program.html [Accessed 2011 Oct 31]

  27. Härter M, Simon D, Loh A. Shared decision-making in diverse health care systems: translating research into practice. Proceedings of the 4th International Shared Decision Making Conference; 2007 May 30–Jun 1; Freiburg [online]. Available from URL: http://2010.patient-als-partner.de/files/isdm_2007_-_conference_program.pdf [Accessed 2011 Oct 31]

  28. Society of Medical Decision Making. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting for the Society for Medical Decision Making; 2004 Oct 17–20; Atlanta (GA) [online]. Available from URL: http://smdm.confex.com/smdm/2004ga/techprogram/MEETING.HTM [Accessed 2011 Oct 31]

  29. Society of Medical Decision Making. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting for the Society for Medical Decision Making; 2005 Oct 21–24; San Francisco (CA) [online]. Available from URL: http://smdm.confex.com/smdm/2005ca/techprogram/MEETING.HTM [Accessed 2011 Oct 31]

  30. Society of Medical Decision Making. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting for the Society for Medical Decision Making; 2006 Oct 15–18; Boston (MA) [online]. Available from URL: http://smdm.confex.com/smdm/2006ma/techprogram/MEETING.HTM [Accessed 2011 Oct 31]

  31. Society of Medical Decision Making. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting for the Society for Medical Decision Making; 2007 Oct 20–24; Pittsburgh (PA) [online]. Available from URL: http://smdm.confex.com/smdm/2007pa/techprogram/MEETING.HTM [Accessed 2011 Oct 21]

  32. Grimshaw J. Effective practice and organisation of care group. Ottawa (ON): University of Ottawa, 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://epoc.cochrane.org/ [Accessed 2011 Oct 23]

    Google Scholar 

  33. Entwistle VA, Watt I, Rosser J, et al. Patient mediated interventions: development of materials and early findings. 11th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care; 1995 Jun 4–7; Stockholm

  34. Davison BJ, Degner LF. Empowerment of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. Cancer Nurs 1997; 20(3): 187–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hess MR. Effect sizes, significance tests, and confidence intervals: assessing the influence and impact of research reporting protocol and practice [dissertation]. Tampa (FL): University of South Florida, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ukoumunne OC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S, et al. Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3(5): iii–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Bieber C, Muller KG, Blumenstiel K. Long-term effects of a shared decision-making intervention on physician-patient interaction and outcome in fibromyalgia: a qualitative and quantitative 1 year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 63(3): 357–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brown RF, Butow PN, Sharrock MA, et al. Education and role modelling for clinical decisions with female cancer patients. Health Expect 2004; 7(4): 303–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Butow P, Devine R, Boyer M, et al. Cancer consultation preparation package: changing patients but not physicians is not enough. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22(21): 4401–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Deschamps MA, Taylor MG, Neubauer SL, et al. Impact of pharmacist consultation versus a decision aid on decision making regarding hormone replacement therapy. Int J Phar Pract 2004; 12(1): 21–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Dolan JG, Frisina S. Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Making 2002; 22(2): 125–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Hood K, et al. Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Fam Pract 2004; 21(4): 337–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hamann J, Langer B, Winkler V, et al. Shared decision making for in-patients with schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2006; 114(4): 265–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kasper J, Köpke S, Muhlhauser I, et al. Informed shared decision making about immunotherapy for patients with multiple sclerosis (ISDIMS): a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Neurol 2008; 15(12): 1345–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Köpke S, Kasper J, Muhlhauser I, et al. Patient education program to enhance decision autonomy in multiple sclerosis relapse management: a randomized-controlled trial. Mult Scler 2009; 15(1): 96–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Krist AH, Woolf SH, Johnson RE, et al. Patient education on prostate cancer screening and involvement in decision making. Ann Fam Med 2007; 5(2): 112–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Krones T, Keller H, Sonnichsen A, et al. Absolute cardiovascular disease risk and shared decision making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med 2008; 6(3): 218–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lalonde L, O’Connor AM, Duguay P, et al. Evaluation of a decision aid and a personal risk profile in community pharmacy for patients considering options to improve cardiovascular health: the OPTIONS pilot study. Int J Pharm Pract 2006; 14(1): 51–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Loh A, Simon D, Willis CE, et al. The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 67(3): 324–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Murray E, Davis H, Tai SS, et al. Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care. BMJ 2001; 323(7311): 493–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. O’Cathain A, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP, et al. Use of evidence based leaflets to promote informed choice in maternity care: randomised controlled trial in everyday practice. BMJ 2002; 324(7338): 643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Stiggelbout AM, Molewijk AC, Otten W, et al. The impact of individualized evidence-based decision support on aneurysm patients’ decision making, ideals of autonomy, and quality of life. Med Decis Making 2008; 28(5): 751–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Street Jr RL, Voigt B, Geyer Jr C, et al. Increasing patient involvement in choosing treatment for early breast cancer. Cancer 1995; 76(11): 2275–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Vodermaier A, Caspari C, Koehm J, et al. Contextual factors in shared decision making: a randomised controlled trial in women with a strong suspicion of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2009; 100(4): 590–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Wetzels R, Wensing M, van Weel C, et al. A consultation leaflet to improve an older patient’s involvement in general practice care: a randomized trial. Health Expect 2005; 8(4): 286–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Whelan T, Sawka C, Levine M, et al. Helping patients make informed choices: a randomized trial of a decision aid for adjuvant chemotherapy in lymph node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95(8): 581–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Légaré F, St-Jacques S, Gagnon S, et al. Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a survey of willingness in women and family physicians to engage in shared decision-making. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31(4): 319–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Légaré F, Ratte S, Gravel K, et al. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73(3): 526–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Nannenga MR, Montory VM, Weymiller AJ, et al. A treatment decision aid may increase patient trust in the diabetes specialist: the Statin Choice randomized trial. Health Expect 2009; 12(1): 38–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Stacey D, O’Connor AM, Graham ID, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of an intervention to implement evidence-based patient decision support in a nursing call centre. J Telemed Telecare 2006; 12(8): 410–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Duncan E, Best C, Hagen S. Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 Jan; 1: CD007297

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Joosten EA, DeFuentes-Merillas L, de Weert GH, et al. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom 2008; 77(4): 219–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Braddock 3rd CH. The emerging importance and relevance of shared decision making to clinical practice. Med Decis Making 2010; 30(5 Suppl.): 5–7S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Braddock 3rd CH, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, et al. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA 1999; 282(24): 2313–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Fortin M, Bravo G, Hudon C, et al. Prevalence of multimorbidity among adults seen in family practice. Ann Fam Med 2005; 3(3): 223–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Légaré F, Stacey D, Gagnon S, et al. Validating a conceptual model for an inter-professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study. J Eval Clin Pract 2011; 17(4): 554–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Michie S, Fixsen D, Grimshaw JM, et al. Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implement Sci 2009; 4: 40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

France Légaré, Stéphane Turcotte and Dawn Stacey conceived this study. All the authors helped refine the study design and analyze and interpret the data. France Légaré drafted the initial manuscript, and the other authors suggested critical revisions. All authors approved the final manuscript for publication. Jennifer Petrela edited the manuscript. France Légaré received salary support from the Government of Canada’s Research Chairs Program. The views expressed are those of the authors and not of the funding agency. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to France Légaré.

Additional information

Key points for decision makers

• Patient-reported outcomes are useful indicators to explore the patient’s perspective of what occurred during the clinical encounter

• Training sessions for health professionals and patient decision aids show promise in aiding the adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice

• Studies need to improve their methodology, and the presentation of their outcomes, in order to determine which intervention is the most effective for encouraging the adoption of shared decision making

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Légaré, F., Turcotte, S., Stacey, D. et al. Patients’ Perceptions of Sharing in Decisions. Patient 5, 1–19 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2165/11592180-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11592180-000000000-00000

Keywords

Navigation