Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice

被引:680
作者
Stiggelbout, A. M. [1 ]
Pieterse, A. H. [1 ]
De Haes, J. C. J. M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Leiden Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Med Decis Making Qual Care, Leiden, Netherlands
[2] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Med Psychol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
Shared decision making; Physician-patient communication; Medical ethics; Patient preferences; Deliberation; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; PROSTATE-CANCER; PREOPERATIVE RADIOTHERAPY; PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES; PATIENT PREFERENCES; ENDOMETRIAL CANCER; RISK COMMUNICATION; RECTAL-CANCER; PATIENTS WANT; OPTION SCALE;
D O I
10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.022
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
100235 [预防医学];
摘要
Objective: Shared decision-making (SDM) is advocated as the model for decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions. In this paper we sketch the history of the concept of SDM, evidence on the occurrence of the steps in daily practice, and provide a clinical audience with communication strategies to support the steps involved. Finally, we discuss ways to improve the implementation of SDM. Results: The plea for SDM originated almost simultaneously in medical ethics and health services reseatch. Four steps can be distinguished: (1) the professional informs the patient that a decision is to be made and that the patient's opinion is important; (2) the professional explains the options and their pros and cons; (3) the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences and the professional supports the patient in deliberation; (4) the professional and patient discuss the patient's wish to make the decision, they make or defer the decision, and discuss follow-up. In practice these steps are seen to occur to a limited extent. Discussion: Knowledge and awareness among both professionals and patients as well as tools and skills training are needed for SDM to become widely implemented. Practice Implications: Professionals may use the steps and accompanying communication strategies to implement SDM. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1172 / 1179
页数:8
相关论文
共 76 条
[1]
GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations [J].
Andrews, Jeff ;
Guyatt, Gordon ;
Oxman, Andrew D. ;
Alderson, Phil ;
Dahm, Philipp ;
Falck-Ytter, Yngve ;
Nasser, Mona ;
Meerpohl, Joerg ;
Post, Piet N. ;
Kunz, Regina ;
Brozek, Jan ;
Vist, Gunn ;
Rind, David ;
Akl, Elie A. ;
Schuenemann, Holger J. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2013, 66 (07) :719-725
[2]
[Anonymous], PROCESS STRUCTURE HU
[3]
[Anonymous], HLTH EXPECT
[4]
[Anonymous], HLTH EXPECT DEC
[5]
[Anonymous], HLTH EXPECT
[6]
[Anonymous], EACH 2014 AMST NETH
[7]
[Anonymous], 2015, MED DECIS MAKING
[8]
Baker Holly, 2007, Psychol Health Med, V12, P380, DOI 10.1080/13548500601133466
[9]
Beauchamp TL, 1979, Principle of biomedical ethics, DOI [10.1016/S0035-9203(02)90063-5, DOI 10.1016/S0035-9203(02)90063-5]
[10]
Informed consent for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: The patient's perspective [J].
Berman, Loren ;
Curry, Leslie ;
Gusberg, Richard ;
Dardik, Alan ;
Fraenkel, Liana .
JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2008, 48 (02) :296-302