For which decisions is Shared Decision Making considered appropriate? – A systematic review

Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 106, pp. 3–16

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify decision characteristics for which SDM authors deem SDM appropriate or not, and what arguments are used. METHODS: We applied two search strategies: we included SDM models from an earlier review (strategy 1) and conducted a new search in eight databases to include papers other than describing an SDM model, such as original research, opinion papers and reviews (strategy 2). RESULTS: From the 92 included papers, we identified 18 decision characteristics for which authors deemed SDM appropriate, including preference-sensitive, equipoise and decisions where patient commitment is needed in implementing the decision. SDM authors indicated limits to SDM, especially when there are immediate life-saving measures needed. We identified four decision characteristics on which authors of different papers disagreed on whether or not SDM is appropriate. CONCLUSION: The findings of this review show the broad range of decision characteristics for which authors deem SDM appropriate, the ambiguity of some, and potential limits of SDM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The findings can stimulate clinicians to (re)consider pursuing SDM in situations in which they did not before. Additionally, it can inform SDM campaigns and educational programs as it shows for which decision situations SDM might be more or less challenging to practice.

Authors 5

1. Dorinde E. M. van der Horst corresponding Aachen Department of Internal Medicine

   Leiden University · Leiden University Medical Center · St. Antonius Ziekenhuis · Santeon (Netherlands)

   Affiliation as printed

   St. Antonius Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands; Santeon, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden, the Netherlands. Electronic address: d.van.der.horst@antoniusziekenhuis.nl

   Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden, the Netherlands

   Santeon, Utrecht, the Netherlands

   St. Antonius Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands

2. Mirjam Marjolein Garvelink

   St. Antonius Ziekenhuis

   Affiliation as printed

   St. Antonius Hospital, Department of Value Based Healthcare, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands

3. Willem Jan W. Bos Aachen Department of Internal Medicine

   Leiden University · Leiden University Medical Center · St. Antonius Ziekenhuis

   Affiliation as printed

   St. Antonius Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands; Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden, the Netherlands

   Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden, the Netherlands

   St. Antonius Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands

4. Anne Margarethe Stiggelbout Aachen Department of Biomedical Data Sciences

   Leiden University · Leiden University Medical Center · Erasmus University Rotterdam

   Affiliation as printed

   Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden, the Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

   Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

   Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden, the Netherlands

5. Arwen H. Pieterse Aachen Department of Biomedical Data Sciences

   Leiden University · Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden, the Netherlands