Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35187247›Full record

ArticleMDM policy & practice

Envisioning Shared Decision Making: A Reflection for the Next Decade.

Jennifer L Barton, Marleen Kunneman, Ian Hargraves, Annie LeBlanc, Juan P Brito, Isabelle Scholl, Victor M Montori

Open access · goldAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Development of a checklist for evaluation of shared decision-making in consultation for extremely preterm delivery.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Shared decision-making as a method of care.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jennifer L BartonOregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6771-3465
Marleen KunnemanBiomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5334-1085
Ian HargravesKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Annie LeBlancKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Juan P BritoKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Isabelle SchollInstitut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Hamburg, Germany.
Victor M MontoriKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0595-2898
Mayo Clinic in Florida · USLeiden University Medical Center · NLMayo Clinic · USOregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

Goal concordance in rheumatoid arthritis in diverse populationsK23AR064372 · NIAMS · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI BARTON, JENNIFER L · 2015 to 2019
$805k
NIAMS NIH HHS K23 AR064372
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the evolving evidence in favor of shared decision making (SDM) and of decades-long calls for its adoption, SDM remains uncommon in routine care. Reflecting on this lack of progress, we sought to reimagine the future of SDM and the path to take us there. In late 2017, a multidisciplinary and international group of six researchers were challenged by a senior SDM scholar to envision the future and, based on a provocatively critical view of the present, to write letters to themselves from the year 2028. Letters were exchanged and discussed electronically. The group then met in person to discuss the letters. Since the letters painted a dystopian picture, they triggered questions about the nature of SDM, who should benefit from SDM, how to measure its contribution to care, and what new ways can be invented to design and test interventions to implement SDM in routine care. Through contrasting the purposefully generated dystopias with an ideal future for SDM, we generated reflections on a research agenda for SDM. These reflections hinged on recognizing SDM's contributing to care, that is, as a way to advance the problematic human situation of patients. These focused on three distinct yet complimentary contributors to SDM: 1) the process of making decisions, 2) humanistic communication, and 3) fit-to-care of the resulting decision. The group then concluded that to move SDM from envisioned to routine practice, and to ensure it reaches all, particularly persons rendered vulnerable by current forms of health care, a substantial investment in implementation research is necessary. Perhaps the discussion of these reflections can contribute to a path forward that will improve the likelihood of the future we dream for SDM.

Indexed as

decision aidsimplementationpatient-centered careshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID35187247
PMCPMC8855401
OpenAlexW3093492667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.