IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i6p755-764.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared Decision Making in Health Care: Theoretical Perspectives for Why It Works and For Whom

Author

Listed:
  • Ken Resnicow

    (Department of Health Behavior & Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Delwyn Catley

    (Center for Children’s Healthy Lifestyles & Nutrition, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA
    School of Medicine, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA)

  • Kathy Goggin

    (School of Medicine, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA
    Division of Health Services and Outcomes Research, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA)

  • Sarah Hawley

    (Department of Medicine, University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Geoffrey C. Williams

    (Collaborative Science and Innovations Billings Clinic, Billings Montana
    Emeritus Department of Medicine and Center for Community Health & Prevention, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York)

Abstract

Applying both theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, we address 2 key questions regarding shared decision making (SDM): 1) When should SDM be more patient driven, and when should it be more provider driven? and 2) Should health care providers match their SDM style/strategy to patient needs and preferences? Self-determination theory, for example, posits a distinction between autonomy and independence. A patient may autonomously seek their health care provider’s input and guidance, perhaps due to low perceived competence, low coping resources, or high emotional arousal. Given their need state, they may autonomously require nonindependence. In this case, it may be more patient centered and need supportive to provide more provider-driven care. We discuss how other patient characteristics such as personality attributes, motivational state, and the course of illness and other parameters such as time available for an encounter may inform optimal provider decision-making style and strategy. We conclude that for some types of patients and clinical circumstances, a more provider-driven approach to decision making may be more practical, ethical, and efficacious. Thus, while all decision making should be patient centered (i.e., it should consider patient needs and preferences), it does not always have to be patient driven. We propose a flexible model of SDM whereby practitioners are encouraged to tailor their decision making behaviors to patient needs, preferences, and other attributes. Studies are needed to test whether matching decision-making behavior based on patient states and traits (i.e., achieving concordance) is more effective than simply providing all patients with the same type of decision making, which could be tested using matching/mismatching designs.

Suggested Citation

  • Ken Resnicow & Delwyn Catley & Kathy Goggin & Sarah Hawley & Geoffrey C. Williams, 2022. "Shared Decision Making in Health Care: Theoretical Perspectives for Why It Works and For Whom," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(6), pages 755-764, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:6:p:755-764
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211058068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211058068
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211058068?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:6:p:755-764. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.