Explore the vast range of titles available.

In patient centred care, shared decision making is a central feature and widely referred to as a norm for patient centred medical consultation. However, it is far from clear how to distinguish SDM from standard models and ideals for medical decision making, such as paternalism and patient choice, and e.g., whether paternalism and patient choice can involve a greater degree of the sort of sharing involved in SDM and still retain their essential features. In the article, different versions of SDM are explored, versions compatible with paternalism and patient choice as well as versions that go beyond these traditional decision making models. Whenever SDM is discussed or introduced it is of importance to be clear over which of these different versions are being pursued, since they connect to basic values and ideals of health care in different ways. It is further argued that we have reason to pursue versions of SDM involving, what is called, a high level dynamics in medical decision-making. This leaves four alternative models to choose between depending on how we balance between the values of patient best interest, patient autonomy, and an effective decision in terms of patient compliance or adherence: Shared Rational Deliberative Patient Choice, Shared Rational Deliberative Paternalism, Shared Rational Deliberative Joint Decision, and Professionally Driven Best Interest Compromise. In relation to these models it is argued that we ideally should use the Shared Rational Deliberative Joint Decision model. However, when the patient and professional fail to reach consensus we will have reason to pursue the Professionally Driven Best Interest Compromise model since this will best harmonise between the different values at stake: patient best interest, patient autonomy, patient adherence and a continued care relationship.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the few cancers in which a continued increase in incidence has been observed over several years. As such, there has been a focus on safe and accurate diagnosis and the development of treatment algorithms that take into consideration the unique complexities of this patient population. In the past decade, there have been improvements in nonsurgical treatment platforms and better standardization with respect to the diagnosis and patient eligibility for liver transplant. How to navigate patients through the challenges of treatment is difficult and depends on several factors: 1) patient-related variables such as comorbid conditions that influence treatment eligibility; 2) liver-related variables such as Child-Pugh score; and 3) tumor-related variables such as size, number, pattern of spread within the liver, and vascular involvement. The objectives of this review are to put into perspective the current treatment options for patients with HCC, the unique advantages and disadvantages of each treatment approach, and the evidence that supports the introduction of sorafenib into the multidisciplinary management of HCC. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Background Technological advances have led to cancer prognostication that is increasingly accurate but often unalterable. However, a reliable prognosis of limited life expectancy can cause psychological distress. People should carefully consider offers of prognostication, but little is known about how and why they decide on prognostication. Using uveal melanoma (UM) patients, we aimed to identify (i) how and why do people with UM decide to accept prognostication and (ii) alignment and divergence of their decision‐making from conceptualizations of a ‘well‐considered’ decision. Methods UM provides a paradigm to elucidate clinical and ethical perspectives on prognostication, because prognostication is reliable but prognoses are largely nonameliorable. We used qualitative methods to examine how and why 20 UM people with UM chose prognostication. We compared findings to a template of ‘well‐considered’ decision‐making, where ‘well‐considered’ decisions involve consideration of all likely outcomes. Results Participants wanted prognostication to reduce future worry about uncertain life expectancy. They spontaneously spoke of hoping for a good prognosis when making their decisions, but largely did not consider the 50% possibility of a poor prognosis. When pressed, they argued that a poor outcome at least brings certainty. Conclusions While respecting decisions as valid expressions of participants' wishes, we are concerned that they did not explicitly consider the realistic possibility of a poor outcome and how this would affect them. Thus, it is difficult to see their decisions as ‘well‐considered’. We propose that nondirective preference exploration techniques could help people to consider the possibility of a poor outcome. Patient or Public Contribution This paper is a direct response to a patient‐identified and defined problem that arose in therapeutic and conversational discourse. The research was informed by the responses of patient participants, as we used the material from interviews to dynamically shape the interview guide. Thus, participants' ideas drove the analysis and shaped the interviews to come.

INTRODUCTION We examined factors influencing eligibility and treatment initiation for anti‐amyloid therapy in a real‐world setting under Japan's universal insurance. METHODS We established a specialized disease‐modifying therapy (DMT) clinic with two‐step screening aligned with optimal use guidelines. We recorded patient flow and reasons for exclusion from December 2023–April 2025 and assessed predictors of initiation among attendees. RESULTS Of 456 self‐referred patients, 247 (54.2%) were excluded at first screening, mainly for advanced stage. Including 107 physician referrals, 312 attended the DMT clinic; 93 did not proceed (80 declined; 13 ineligible). Second‐stage screening excluded 44 for amyloid‐β negativity and 33 for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contraindications. Overall, 131 patients (42.0% of attendees) initiated therapy. In multivariable analysis, older age (≥75 years), male sex, and higher Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores (27–30) were independently associated with a lower likelihood of initiation. DISCUSSION Universal insurance expands access, yet safer, less burdensome regimens and earlier intervention may improve uptake. Highlights First real‐world report on disease‐modifying therapy (DMT) implementation under Japan's universal insurance Only 42.0% of specialized DMT clinic attendees initiated anti‐amyloid therapy Exclusion was mainly due to advanced dementia, amyloid negativity, or side effect concerns Older age, male sex, and higher MMSE scores independently predicted lower initiation Findings reveal non‐financial barriers in the early rollout of Alzheimer's DMTs

BackgroundWhile shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style – Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians’ expertise, training, and practice.ResultsSDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style.ConclusionsThe preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe.

Aims Decision‐makers still predominantly focus on the perspective of non‐patient stakeholders, which may deviate from the unique perspective of heart failure (HF) patients. To enhance patient‐centred decision‐making, there is a need for more patient‐based evidence derived directly from the patients themselves. Hence, this study aimed to understand (i) HF patients' unmet medical needs and preferred treatment outcomes; (ii) patients' risk tolerance; and (iii) their information needs, uncertainties and satisfaction towards HF treatment. Methods This qualitative patient preference study consisted of a literature review with a systematic search strategy and semi‐structured interviews with HF patients, analysed using the framework method. During the interviews, patients were asked to rank a predefined list of disease and treatment‐related characteristics informed by the literature review and were able to spontaneously raise additional characteristics. Results The study included 14 Belgian HF patients (age range: 58–79, mean age: 72). (i) Regarding their unmet medical needs, HF patients reported that the most important unmet medical needs were shortness of breath and fatigue, as they negatively impact their quality of life (QoL) and independence. In the ranking exercise, patients prioritized improvements in QoL over improvements in life expectancy, whereby the following characteristics received the highest cumulative score: (1) independence, (2) shortness of breath, (3) impaired renal function, (4) survival, (5) fatigue, (6) risk of hospitalization and (7) communication with and between physicians. Patients most often spontaneously raise characteristics related to the general care process. Mechanism of action, route of administration, dose frequency and weight fluctuations scored among the least important characteristics. (ii) Regarding patients' risk tolerance towards HF treatment, some of the patients expressed zero tolerance for side effects, as they had not yet experienced any discomfort caused by the treatment or disease. (iii) Regarding their information needs, patients voiced their desire to receive practical and comprehensible advice orally from their physician because they highly value individualized treatment decision‐making. Patients also expressed uncertainties regarding whether the experienced effects were due to their treatment, disease, ageing or other comorbidities. Conclusions This study shows that, besides increasing life expectancy, HF patients prioritize improvements in symptoms and side effects reducing their QoL and independence, such as shortness of breath and fatigue. The patient‐relevant characteristics identified in this study, from the perspective of HF patients themselves, may be useful to inform clinical trial endpoint selection and guide downstream drug development, evaluation and clinical decision‐making towards addressing the unmet medical needs and treatment outcomes of importance to HF patients.