Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25224366›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2014

A model to support shared decision making in electronic health records systems.

Leslie Lenert, Robert Dunlea, Guilherme Del Fiol, Leslie Kelly Hall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Shared Decision Making: From Decision Science to Data Science.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Barriers to Completing Delayed Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy: a Critical Need for Patient and Clinician Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Shared decision-making using personal health record technology: a scoping review at the crossroads.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Leslie LenertDepartment of Internal Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston (LL)
Robert DunleaDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, School of Medicine, Salt Lake City (RD, GDF)
Guilherme Del FiolDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, School of Medicine, Salt Lake City (RD, GDF)
Leslie Kelly HallHealthwise, Boise, Idaho (LKH).

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MEDICAL INFORMATICS TRAININGT15LM007124 · NLM · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI Karen Louise Eilbeck · 1997 to 2026
$22.0M
Techniques to Integrate Disparate Data: Clinical Personalized Pragmatic PredictioR01GM108346 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI FREY, LEWIS JAMES, LENERT, LESLIE A. · 2013 to 2016
$2.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM108346NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007124NLM NIH HHS T15LM007124
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shared decision making (SDM) is an approach to medical care based on collaboration between provider and patient, with both sharing in medical decisions. When patients' values and preferences are incorporated in decision making, care is more appropriate, ethically sound, and often lower in cost. However, SDM is difficult to implement in routine practice because of the time required for SDM methods, the lack of integration of SDM approaches into electronic health record (EHR) systems, and absence of explanatory mechanisms for providers on the results of patients' use of decision aids. This article discusses potential solutions, including the concept of a "personalize button" for EHRs. Leveraging a 4-phase clinical model for SDM, this article describes how computer decision support (CDS) technologies integrated into EHRs can help ensure that health care is delivered in a way that is respectful of those preferences. The architecture described herein, called CDS for SDM, is built on recognized standards that are currently integrated into certification requirements for EHRs as part of meaningful use regulations. While additional work is needed on modeling of preferences and on techniques for rapid communication models of preferences to clinicians, unless EHRs are redesigned to support SDM around and during clinical encounters, they are likely to continue to be an unintended barrier to SDM. With appropriate development, EHRs could be a powerful tool to promote SDM by reminding providers of situations for SDM and monitoring ongoing care to ensure treatments are consistent with patients' preferences.

Indexed as

Decision Making, OrganizationalElectronic Health RecordsModels, OrganizationalUser-Computer Interfacedecision supportelectronic health recordspatient preferencesshared decision makingworkflow

Identifiers

PMID25224366
PMCPMC4289635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.