Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37580704›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical ethics2023

Shared decision making and advance care planning: a systematic literature review and novel decision-making model.

Ana Rosca, Isabelle Karzig-Roduner, Jürgen Kasper, Niek Rogger, Daniel Drewniak, Tanja Krones

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Early and simultaneous palliative care in cancer patients: an overview.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Shared Decision-Making with Palliative Care Specialist.Journal of hospice and palliative care · 2025
    Review
  7. Advance care planning for adults with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Ana RoscaClinical ethics, Stadtspital Zürich, Birmensdorferstrasse 497, Zürich, 8063, Switzerland. ana.rosca@stadtspital.ch.
Isabelle Karzig-RodunerInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, Clinical Ethics, University of Zürich, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Jürgen KasperDepartment of Nursing and Health Promotion, Oslo metropolitan Universita, Oslo, Norway.
Niek RoggerUniversity of Applied Sciences Leiden, Leiden, Netherlands.
Daniel DrewniakInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Tanja KronesInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, Clinical Ethics, University of Zürich, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsShared decision making (SDM) and advance care planning (ACP) are important evidence and ethics based concepts that can be translated in communication tools to aid the treatment decision-making process. Although both have been recommended in the care of patients with risks of complications, they have not yet been described as two components of one single process. In this paper we aim to (1) assess how SDM and ACP is being applied, choosing patients with aortic stenosis with high and moderate treatment complication risks such as bleeding or stroke as an example, and (2) propose a model to best combine the two concepts and integrate them in the care process.

methodsIn order to assess how SDM and ACP is applied in usual care, we have performed a systematic literature review. The included studies have been analysed by means of thematic analysis as well as abductive reasoning to determine which SDM and ACP steps are applied as well as to propose a model of combining the two concepts into one process.

resultsThe search in Medline, Cinahl, Embase, Scopus, Web of science, Psychinfo and Cochrane revealed 15 studies. Eleven describe various steps of SDM while four studies discuss the documentation of goals of care. Based on the review results and existing evidence we propose a model that combines SDM and ACP in one process for a complete patient informed choice.

conclusionTo be able to make informed choices about immediate and future care, patients should be engaged in both SDM and ACP decision-making processes. This allows for an iterative process in which each important decision-maker can share their expertise and concerns regarding the care planning and advance care planning. This would help to better structure and prioritize information while creating a trustful and respectful relationship between the participants. PROSPERO 2019. CRD42019124575.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedDocumentationHumansPatient ParticipationRecordsAdvance care planningAortic stenosisIntegrative modelShared decision makingSystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID37580704
PMCPMC10426137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.