Explore the vast range of titles available.

Research into health literacy and shared decision-making has largely developed along parallel, but distinct lines over the past two decades. There is little evidence that the concepts and related practice have intersected except in the most functional way, for example, to simplify shared decision-making tools by improving readability scores of decision aids. This paper presents an integrated model to strengthen and sustain patient engagement in health care by drawing on the strengths of both concepts. This includes addressing patients’ skills and capacities, alongside modifications to written and verbal information. We propose an expanded model of shared decision-making which incorporates health literacy concepts and promotes two-tiered intervention methods to improve the targeting and personalization of communication and support the development of transferable health literacy skills among patients.

Shared decision‐making is appropriate for clinical decisions involving multiple reasonable options, which occur frequently in the cardiovascular care of older adults. The process includes the communication of relevant factual information between the patient and the clinician, elicitation of patient preferences, and a mutual agreement on the best course of action to meet the patient's personal goals. For older adults, there are common challenges and considerations with regard to shared decision‐making, some of which (eg, cognitive impairment) may be biologically linked to cardiovascular disease. There are tools designed to facilitate the shared decision‐making process, known as decision aids, which are broadly effective although have shortcomings when applied to older adults. Novel approaches in clinical research and health systems changes will go some way toward improving shared decision‐making for older adults, but the greatest scope for improvement may be within the grass roots areas of communication skills, interdisciplinary teamwork, and simply asking our patients what matters most.

Background Involving patients in their healthcare using shared decision-making (SDM) is promoted through policy and research, yet its implementation in routine practice remains slow. Research into SDM has stemmed from primary and secondary care contexts, and research into the implementation of SDM in tertiary care settings has not been systematically reviewed. Furthermore, perspectives on SDM beyond those of patients and their treating clinicians may add insights into the implementation of SDM. This systematic review aimed to review literature exploring barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital settings from multiple stakeholder perspectives. Methods The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed qualitative studies with the primary aim of identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital (tertiary care) settings. Studies from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health service administrators, and decision makers, government policy makers, and other stakeholders (for example researchers) were eligible for inclusion. Reported qualitative results were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify behavioural barriers and facilitators to SDM. Results Titles and abstracts of 8724 articles were screened and 520 were reviewed in full text. Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 12) were conducted in the last four years; only four reported perspectives in addition to the patient-clinician dyad. In mapping results to the TDF, the dominant themes were Environmental Context and Resources, Social/Professional Role and Identity, Knowledge and Skills, and Beliefs about Capabilities. A wide range of barriers and facilitators across individual, organisational, and system levels were reported. Barriers specific to the hospital setting included noisy and busy ward environments and a lack of private spaces in which to conduct SDM conversations. Conclusions SDM implementation research in hospital settings appears to be a young field. Future research should build on studies examining perspectives beyond the clinician-patient dyad and further consider the role of organisational- and system-level factors. Organisations wishing to implement SDM in hospital settings should also consider factors specific to tertiary care settings in addition to addressing their organisational and individual SDM needs. Trial Registration The protocol for the review is registered on the Open Science Framework and can be found at https://osf.io/da645/ , DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DA645 .

Background Shared Decision-making (SDM), a medical decision-making model, was popularized in the late 1980s in reaction to then predominate paternalistic decision-making, aiming to better meet the needs of patients. Extensive research has been conducted internationally examining the benefits of SDM implementation; however, existing theory on how SDM works, for whom, in which circumstances , and why is limited. While literature has shown positive patient, health care provider, and system benefits (SDM outputs), further research is required to understand the nuances of this type of decision-making. As such, we set out to address: “In which situations, how, why, and for whom does SDM between patients and health care providers contribute to improved engagement in the Shared Decision-making process?” Methods To achieve our study goals we conducted a seven-step realist synthesis process, which included: (1) preliminary program theory development, (2) search strategy development, (3) selection and appraisal of literature in accordance with realist methodology, (4) data extraction, (5) identification of relevant formal theories, (6) data analysis and synthesis, and (7) formation of a revised program theory with the input of stakeholders. This process was done in accordance with RAMESES guidelines and publication standards for a realist synthesis. Expert consultations were also held to ensure consistency within the SDM literature. Results Through our realist synthesis, we developed a program theory of SDM which includes three contexts (pre-existing relationship, difficulty of decision, and system support), eight mechanism sets (anxiety, trust, perception of other party capacity, perception of time, self-efficacy, world view, perception of capacity to external support, and recognition of decision), and one outcome (engagement in SDM). Conclusions As far as the authors of this paper are aware, this paper is the first to begin unpacking how SDM works, for whom , in which circumstances , and why. By examining key mechanism sets and exploring how they facilitate or inhibit SDM, we have produced a program theory that may assist health care professionals, policy makers, and patients. While further research is suggested to further unpack the concepts identified within this paper, this provides an initial understanding into the theory behind SDM. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42017062609.

Introduction The ethical obligation to reduce the environmental impact of healthcare systems prompts an exploration of if and when environmental concerns should be integrated into clinical decision‐making. In this study, we aimed to elucidate patients' attitudes regarding the provision of environmental information in healthcare decision‐making and to identify preferred approaches for integrating these considerations into patient–provider consultations. Methods This interview study served as an in‐depth follow‐up of a survey study on gynaecological patients' perspectives on environmental sustainability within healthcare settings. We conducted semistructured interviews with 14 patients from two Dutch outpatient clinics between February and May 2024. We employed reflexive thematic analysis to analyse the data. Results Five main themes were developed from the data: (1) Patients are an integral part of the transition to sustainable healthcare, (2) Patients are open to information on environmental impact of healthcare, (3) Information on environmental impact should be tailored to the individual patient and context, (4) Patients vary in preferences for involvement in decision‐making related to environmental sustainability and (5) Patients prioritize individual health over environmental concerns in healthcare decision‐making. Conclusion The findings of our study underscore the importance of integrating sustainability into clinical decision‐making, aligning with bioethical principles and the expectations and goals of patients. By ensuring that environmental considerations are introduced in a personalized and context‐appropriate manner within patient–provider interactions, healthcare can foster greater support for sustainable practices. Patient or Public Contribution Patients were involved in developing the pre‐interview questionnaire. The preliminary results of the study were presented to healthcare professionals from various backgrounds during a meeting of the Dutch Green Care Alliance, after which the input was incorporated into the interpretation of the study results. Finally, the complete manuscript was presented to representatives from the Dutch Patient Federation to obtain their input on the interpretation and implications of our research. The interpretation of our results aligned with the findings from their recent national inquiries, which included data from over 9300 patients within their network. Consequently, no changes were made to the manuscript's discussion.

Objective Shared decision‐making (SDM) as a multicollaborative approach is vital for facilitating patient‐centred care. Considering the limited clinical practice, we attempted to synthesize the motivations and resistances, and investigate their mutual relationships for advancing the implementation of SDM. Methods A comprehensive systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis guidelines was performed. ‘Shared decision making’ was searched as the mesh term through PubMed, Web of Science and EBSCO from 2000 to 2021, and the quality of literature was appraised using the QualSyst Tool. Motivations and resistances were categorized based on content analysis and the ‘structure–process–outcome’ model. Results From 8319 potential citations, 105 were included, comprising 53 qualitative studies (the average quality score is 0.92) and 52 quantitative studies (the average quality score is 0.95). A total of 42 categories of factors were identified into 11 themes and further grouped into three dimensions: structure, process and outcome. The structure dimension comprised six themes (71.43%), the process dimension contained four themes (11.01%) and the outcome dimension covered only one theme. Across all categories, decision‐making time and patients' decision preparedness in the process dimension were the most reported, followed by physicians' communication skills and health care environment in the structure dimension. Analysis of implementation of SDM among various types of diseases showed that more influencing factors were extracted from chronic diseases and unspecified disease decisions. Conclusions The major determinants for the implementation of SDM are focused on the structural dimension, which challenges the health systems of both developed and low‐ and middle‐income countries. Furthermore, we consider it important to understand more about the interactions among the factors to take integrated measures to address the problems and to ensure the effectiveness of implementing SDM. Patient or Public Contribution Patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders articulated their perspectives on the implementation of SDM actively, and these were adopted and analysed in this study. However, the above‐mentioned individuals were not directly involved in the process of this study. Protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021259309).

Patient-centered care promotes the involvement of patients in decision-making related to their health care. The adoption and implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) into routine care are constrained by several obstacles, including technical and time constraints, clinician and patient attitudes and perceptions, and processes that exist outside the standardized clinical workflow. We aimed to understand the integration and implementation characteristics of reported SDM interventions integrated into an electronic health record (EHR) system. We conducted a scoping review using the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley with guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Eligibility criteria included original research and reviews focusing on SDM situations in a real-world clinical setting and EHR integration of SDM tools and processes. We excluded retrospective studies, conference abstracts, simulation studies, user design studies, opinion pieces, and editorials. To identify eligible studies, we searched the following databases on January 11, 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library including CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. We systematically categorized descriptive data and key findings in a tabular format using predetermined data charting forms. Results were summarized using tables and associated narratives related to the review questions. Of the 2153 studies, 18 (0.84%) were included in the final review. There was a high degree of variation across studies, including SDM definitions, standardized measures, technical integration, and implementation strategies. SDM tools that targeted established health care processes promoted their use. Integrating SDM templates and tools into an EHR appeared to improve the targeted outcomes of most (17/18, 94%) studies. Most SDM interventions were designed for clinicians. Patient-specific goals and values were included in 56% (10/18) of studies. The 2 most common study outcome measures were SDM-related measures and SDM tool use. Understanding how to integrate SDM tools directly into a clinician's workflow within the EHR is a logical approach to promoting SDM into routine clinical practice. This review contributes to the literature by illuminating features of SDM tools that have been integrated into an EHR system. Standardization of SDM tools and processes, including the use of patient decision aids, is needed for consistency across SDM studies. The implementation approaches for SDM applications showed varying levels of planning and effort to promote SDM intervention awareness. Targeting accepted and established clinical processes may enhance the adoption and use of SDM tools. Future studies designed as randomized controlled trials are needed to expand the quality of the evidence base. This includes the study of integration methods into EHR systems as well as implementation methods and strategies deployed to operationalize the uptake of the SDM-integrated tools. Emphasizing patients' goals and values is another key area for future studies.

Objective To examine decision‐making between healthcare providers (HCPs), older people and their carers in relation to medication management. Methods Four databases were systematically searched up to June 2023. Two authors screened the search results. Extracted quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results Fifty‐three papers reporting on 49 studies were included. A variety of research methods were utilised. Few authors provided a definition of shared decision‐making (SDM). Three major themes were identified: provider‐driven decision‐making, patient‐driven decision‐making and a shared role in decision‐making. Some older people preferred or deferred to provider‐driven decision‐making, mainly due to trust in the HCP's expertise. Other reasons for provider‐driven decision‐making were patient anxiety, declining health, lack of medical knowledge or poor communication during the clinical encounter. Evidence of patient‐driven decision‐making was often prompted by concerns about the adverse effects of medication. Most older people preferred or adopted a shared role in decision‐making. Conclusion Whilst most patients and carers preferred to engage in SDM related to medication management, at times, they felt unable to do so, deferring to provider‐driven decision‐making. There is a need for a standardised definition and measurement of SDM. Patient or Public Contribution This systematic review did not directly involve older people or carers of older people in the design or conduct of the review. However, the findings will inform a qualitative study aimed at exploring older people and their carers' experiences of medication‐related decision‐making in collaboration with their healthcare provider. Trial Registration: CRD42019124862.

Background The use of shared decision‐making (SDM) in mental healthcare has been viewed as at least as important as its use in non‐mental healthcare settings, but it still does not routinely take place in this setting. To further explore SDM processes with people with lived experience, we provide a qualitative meta‐summary on patient‐reported barriers and facilitators to participation in SDM within the context of mental healthcare. Methods Within the set of selected studies for a larger qualitative meta‐summary, using five databases, we selected the studies that had surveyed patients with mental illness for further analysis in this paper. Search terms were based on the concepts: ‘decision making’, ‘patient participation’, ‘patient perceptions’ and ‘study design’ of patient reporting, including patient surveys, interviews and focus groups. Results Out of the 90 studies that had been selected for the larger review, we selected 13 articles concerning mental illness for more detailed analysis in this review. In total, we identified 29 different influencing factors and we found 6 major barriers: ‘Lack of choice’, ‘Not being respected as a person’, ‘Feeling stigma from physician’, ‘Disease burden’, ‘Power imbalance’ and ‘Low self‐efficacy to participate’. ‘Clear information provision about options’, ‘Being respected as a person, being taken into account’, ‘Good physician‐patient relationship’ and ‘Belief in the importance of one's own role’ were the main facilitators. Conclusions Stigma and self‐stigma still seem to persist in mental healthcare and continue to suppress patients' self‐efficacy to participate in SDM in this setting. There is much discussion of inclusion and diversity worldwide, and these themes are just as topical for patients with mental health problems. Further work seems necessary to eradicate all stigma and self‐stigma in this setting when striving for care that could be ‘as shared as possible’. Patient and Public Contribution The authors wish to thank Mr. Walter Geuens, a person with lived experience in mental healthcare, for his careful reading and thorough feedback on the final paper.

Purpose Adolescence is a period of growing independence and maturity, within the period of legal minority. As parents or guardians are socially and legally responsible for adolescents’ medical decisions, shared decision-making in adolescent healthcare could be ethically challenging. This review aims to identify and map the ethical tensions in shared decision-making in adolescent healthcare. Methods We systematically searched the literature following the PRISMA guidelines to identify relevant articles, which were analyzed using the review of reasons methodology Strech and Sofaer (J Med Ethics 38(2):121-6, 2012 ). Results We included 38 articles which involved adolescents, healthcare professionals and parents as being the main stakeholders. Shared decision-making was influenced not only by individual stakeholders’ characteristics, but by tensions between stakeholder dyads. Most studies supported the involvement of the adolescent in decision-making, depending on their life experience, decision-making capacity and clinical condition. Conclusions Shared decision-making in adolescent health is receiving increasing attention. However, questions remain on what this concept entails, the roles and involvement of stakeholders and its practical implementation. What is known: • Although adolescents wish to be involved in health decisions, shared decision-making in adolescents is underexplored • Adolescent shared decision-making is different from pediatric and adult shared decision-making, and is ethically complex due to the adolescent’s growing autonomy What is new: • Adolescent SDM involves three-way interactions between the adolescent, healthcare professional and parents • In adolescent shared decision-making, involving or excluding a stakeholder and sharing or withholding information are ethically value-laden steps • Research is needed to further understand the roles of adolescents’ personal value systems, extended or reconstituted families and decision aids in shared decision-making