ReviewNeurocritical care2014
The collaborative autonomy model of medical decision-making.
Review in Neurocritical care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- From fMRI to Family Meeting: Clinician and Family Perspectives on Neurotechnology-Informed Shared Decision-Making in Disorders of Consciousness.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Practical approaches to the tasks of preserving autonomy and respecting vulnerability among critically ill adult patients: a narrative review.Critical care science · 2025Review
- The conflict between oral health and patient autonomy in dentistry: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Patient autonomy in the era of the sustainability crisis.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Article
- Informed Consent in the Stroke Care Continuum.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Review
- Who Should Make Medical Decisions When a Patient Lacks an Advance Directive?The Neurohospitalist · 2022Article
- Doctors as Appointed Fiduciaries: A Supplemental Model for Medical Decision-Making.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2022Article
- When is it considered reasonable to start a risky and uncomfortable treatment in critically ill patients? A random sample online questionnaire study.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Article
- Patient decision aids: a content analysis based on a decision tree structure.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- New perspectives on substituted relational autonomy for shared decision-making in critical care.Critical care (London, England) · 2018Article
- Readability of Sports Injury and Prevention Patient Education Materials From the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Website.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2018Article
- The SDM 3 Circle Model: A Literature Synthesis and Adaptation for Shared Decision Making in the Hospital.Journal of hospital medicine · 2017Review
- Communication, Leadership, and Decision-Making in the Neuro-ICU.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2016Review
- Frequency of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with practice among rural-based, group-employed physicians and non-physician practitioners.BMC health services research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While the bioethical principle of beneficence originated in antiquity, the ascension of autonomy, or "self-rule," has redefined the physician-patient relationship to the extent that autonomy often dominates medical decision-making. Philosophical and social movements, medical research atrocities, consumerism, and case law have all had their influence on this paradigm shift. Consequently, the contemporary physician encounters an uncertainty in medical practice on how to resolve conflicts that arise in the pursuit of valuing both autonomy and beneficence. This is especially true in the practice of neurologic critical care where physicians may be advising comfort care measures for neurologically devastated patients while surrogates request physiologically futile interventions. This conundrum has been an important subject of the bioethics and social science literature but often this discourse is not disseminated to the clinicians confronting these issues. The purpose of this essay is to present a history of the principles of autonomy and beneficence and then present a shared medical decision-making model, collaborative autonomy, to provide guidance to neurologic critical care providers in how to resolve such dilemmas. Clinical vignettes will help illustrate the model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24233814What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.