ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2019
Dialogic Consensus as the Moral Philosophical Basis for Shared Decision-making.
Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moral diversity and the challenge of responsibility in AI-CDSS.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2026Article
- Exploring the Meaning of Collaboration in Rural Mental Healthcare Delivery From the Perspective of Mental Health Clinicians and Informal Carers of People Living With a Mental Health Illness-A Qualitative Study.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Article
- Introducing the ethical cycle model for resolving ethical conflicts in medical practice: addressing challenges in treating pandemic patients.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2024Review
- Sharing decisions amid uncertainties: a qualitative interview study of healthcare professionals' ethical challenges and norms regarding decision-making in gender-affirming medical care.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Referral vs Transfer of Care: Ethical Options When Values Differ.The Linacre quarterly · 2022Article
- Decision-making approaches in transgender healthcare: conceptual analysis and ethical implications.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
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
Shared decision-making is important and beneficial for patients. Practically, this requires that we explore the values of the patient and the clinician and then consider available treatment options. The aim is to maximize the good of the patient in the context of their illness. Hence, clinical consultations are situations in which we can, and should, draw upon moral philosophical precepts. One such precept, which can fortify the foundations of shared decision-making, is a process of inclusive, noncoercive, and reflective dialogue, which aims at reaching a consensual decision as to what is best for the patient in their situation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.