Saving Shared Decision-Making

9Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality encouraged a re-examination of the concept, process, and measurement of shared decision-making (SDM) in 2016. Progress, however, has been slow. One illustrative example is SDM’s relationship with the concept of equipoise: there remains little consensus on what equipoise means in the context of SDM, creating confusion about when SDM is and is not indicated. In this paper, we describe the ways in which this focus on equipoise in SDM is counter-productive and argue that equipoise is neither a necessary nor sufficient criterion in determining the need for SDM. Moreover, we suggest that what is needed to move the field of SDM forward is a shift away from focusing on when SDM is needed to instead focusing on how best to accomplish SDM across a variety of contexts by advancing the science of SDM implementation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Opel, D. J., Gerstein, M. T., Carle, A. C., Fournier, A. K., Hargraves, I., Lafata, J. E., … Dickert, N. W. (2025). Saving Shared Decision-Making. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 40(8), 1844–1847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-025-09410-z

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free