ライフサイエンスコーパス: shared decision making

1 a wish and 83 [20] in those with a wish for shared decision-making).

2 r study and improvement of interprofessional shared decision making.

3 reasonable treatment options is often called shared decision making.

4 isfied with their level of collaboration and shared decision making.

5 econdary outcome was an objective measure of shared decision making.

6 settings and allows for risk assessment and shared decision making.

7 hould be communicated to patients as part of shared decision making.

8 entered outcomes are needed to better inform shared decision making.

9 benefits for patient education, support, and shared decision making.

10 ree of personalization within a framework of shared decision making.

11 ion-making quality and enhance collaborative shared decision making.

12 sks and benefits to patients is critical for shared decision making.

13 based on patient values and preferences, and shared decision making.

14 ted the model into an online tool to support shared decision making.

15 in the patient record, and the importance of shared decision making.

16 implantation was offered but was subject to shared decision making.

17 suppression, it should be part of informed, shared decision making.

18 T without revascularization and help support shared decision making.

19 multidisciplinary heart team and involved in shared decision making.

20 eferences was critical for satisfaction with shared decision making.

21 ided based on individual risk assessment and shared decision making.

22 in decision making remains a key barrier to shared decision making.

23 ent preferences is important to facilitating shared decision making.

24 lder patients with kidney failure experience shared decision making.

25 r provides actionable information and guides shared decision making.

26 lized prostate cancer treatment could inform shared decision making.

27 ith patient's values and preferences through shared decision making.

28 mpetencies in collaborative goal setting and shared decision making.

29 l outcomes for reimbursement and engaging in shared decision-making.

30 ecisional needs of patients through enhanced shared decision-making.

31 th technology assessment and patient-centred shared decision-making.

32 core was similarly predictive and may inform shared decision-making.

33 ists supported more subtle nudging to foster shared decision-making.

34 es is critical to effective patient care and shared decision-making.

35 match between preferences and treatment, or shared decision-making.

36 e treatment decisions and engage patients in shared decision-making.

37 e domains active in that patient, supporting shared decision-making.

38 adrenal insufficiency, and patient-physician shared decision-making.

39 apy cost and availability and should include shared decision-making.

40 be tailored to their numeric literacy during shared decision-making.

41 defibrillator (ICD) and include promotion of shared decision-making.

42 ons have been published on interprofessional shared decision-making.

43 al ward settings using a recognised model of shared decision-making.

44 symptoms, coping, patient satisfaction, and shared decision-making.

45 ions of bedside patient-family engagement or shared decision-making.

46 ies; (8) quality of care equity metrics; (9) shared decision-making; (10) patient experience; (11) tr

47 ed in three ways: 1) presence of elements of shared decision-making, 2) balance between physician and

48 out treatment goals and plans; 3) ethics and shared decision making; 4) relief of pain and other symp

49 CU climate oriented toward interprofessional shared decision-making; 4) clinicians implementing inter

50 % CI, 5.9%-7.8%; P<.001) and negotiation and shared decision making (5.7% difference; 95% CI, 4.5%-6.

51 within 10 years) and the results are used in shared decision making about possible treatments.

52 mation is needed to facilitate and encourage shared decision making about the clinical implications o

53 Palliative care focuses on communication, shared decision making about treatment options, advance

54 ons should be the major factors addressed in shared decision making about treatment options.

55 ant to discuss the risk with patients during shared decision-making about prostate cancer treatment o

56 counter decision aid improved the quality of shared decision making (adjusted mean difference 12.1 (9

57 tion, 47% of women reported a preference for shared decision making; afterwards, 61% felt they had pr

58 Effective communication, shared decision-making, age-friendly care principles, an

59 help inform the development of a future CHC shared decision-making aid.

60 lence, and support greater communication and shared decision making among family members, as well as

61 d-of-life care, can be used to better direct shared decision making and assist with antibiotic stewar

62 practice guidelines or consensus statements, shared decision making and decision aids, or provider fe

63 ine-recommended CPRD, the general concept of shared decision making and decision aids, the American C

64 decision contains both risk and uncertainty, shared decision making and informed consent are both app

65 ividual physician and patient participate in shared decision making and physicians are held accountab

66 gestational diabetes might be enhanced using shared decision making and precision medicine.

67 This can be used for shared decision making and to benchmark hospital perform

68 ations management, developing more effective shared decision making and transparent medical records a

69 gnosis, patient and family decision support, shared decision making and triage, treatment, and monito

70 th maintenance dialysis is needed to improve shared decision-making and care practices for this popul

71 advanced head and neck cancer should involve shared decision-making and consideration of effects on s

72 Bariatric outcomes are needed for shared decision-making and coverage policy concerns iden

73 e survey using the validated SDMQ9 scale for shared decision-making and Decisional Regret Scale (DRS)

74 l requiring particular attention in terms of shared decision-making and either formal discussion or w

75 ties around the benefit-risk metric, may aid shared decision-making and enhance transparency of those

76 on quality as evidenced by fewer elements of shared decision-making and greater imbalance between phy

77 e also discuss the potential for encouraging shared decision-making and improving medical consensus t

78 focused care coordination (EFCC), which used shared decision-making and motivational techniques to re

79 Though there were good examples of shared decision-making and parent and child engagement s

80 isk preoperatively is important for clinical shared decision-making and planning of health resources

81 ialysis care, no-nephrologist education, and shared decision-making), and maintenance of home dialysi

82 ve care unit, which addresses communication, shared decision making, and pain and symptom management

83 , foster productive communication, stimulate shared decision making, and ultimately lead to better ou

84 ms, promote evidence-based medicine, support shared decision making, and ultimately lead to improved

85 ripts using OPTION 5, an observer measure of shared decision making, and used qualitative content ana

86 d patients, facilitated patients' desire for shared decision making, and were feasible to implement i

87 nt paradigm that emphasizes team-based care, shared decision-making, and evaluation of social determi

88 ect a test and laboratory, engage parents in shared decision-making, and for the return of results.

89 I) can guide the triage of care services and shared decision-making, and novel methods hold promise f

90 e care planning, greater staff engagement in shared decision-making, and staff implicit values unfavo

91 QIP risk estimates used for benchmarking and shared decision-making appear to differ between emergenc

92 A shared decision-making approach can engage patients and

93 A thorough educational and shared decision-making approach is necessary during the

94 A shared decision-making approach is recommended, consider

95 ls, families, and service providers taking a shared decision-making approach to maximise the individu

96 Providers should pursue a shared decision-making approach, engaging in open conver

97 TION 2: ACP recommends that clinicians use a shared decision-making approach, including a discussion

98 on of therapy, the Expert Panel recommends a shared decision-making approach, taking into account pat

99 Effective risk stratification tools and shared decision making are essential for this patient po

100 Using shared decision making as a reference category, we deter

101 Broad endorsement of shared decision-making as a critical component of high-q

102 s assessment for improving clinical care and shared decision-making, assessing quality of care, evalu

103 iculty in reporting symptoms and engaging in shared decision-making associated with cognitive impairm

104 entered clinical approaches to care (such as shared decision-making augmented with relevant decision-

105 ffects are likely similar across age groups, shared decision-making based on individual patient prefe

106 treatment effect estimations can be used for shared decision making before starting dabigatran treatm

107 Shared decision making between clinicians and patients i

108 Shared decision making between clinicians and patients i

109 nt of a decision aid (PCI Choice) to promote shared decision making between clinicians and patients r

110 In this context, informed shared decision making between clinicians and patients r

111 management of kidney tumors and help inform shared decision making between clinicians and patients.

112 e III or serous cancers, or both, as part of shared decision making between doctors and patients.

113 Shared decision making between paramedics and primary ca

114 rtance of patient preference exploration and shared decision making between patient and physician whe

115 ministering advice and treatment to that of shared decision making between patient and physician.

116 nt-centered care, these results should guide shared decision making between patients with lung cancer

117 mong treatment modalities should be based on shared decision making between the patient and physician

118 ooled cohort equations to start a process of shared decision-making between clinicians and patients i

119 ooled cohort equations to start a process of shared decision-making between clinicians and patients i

120 patients; in the meantime, communication and shared decision-making between hematologists and patient

121 Despite emphasis on shared decision-making between parents and surgeons abou

122 Current MS treatment guidelines emphasize shared decision-making between patients and clinicians t

123 e of new technologies can be reduced through shared decision-making between well-informed physicians

124 ons correct; P<0.01) and greater interest in shared decision-making but not an overall change in pati

125 jection fraction may be an important part of shared decision-making, but cost has generally been excl

126 determinations, and they include: relying on shared decision making by all participants, obtaining in

127 ended to serve as the basis for informed and shared decision making by clinicians and patients.

128 lth decision aids are designed to facilitate shared decision making by helping patients and their phy

129 g nonoperative management (NOM) factors into shared decision making by patient and surgeon; however,

130 potential harms and benefits; and (4) using shared decision making by physicians to incorporate the

131 tween methotrexate and prednisone may inform shared decision making by providers and patients about t

132 An increase in shared decision making can result from a better understa

133 e diagnosis and effective therapy along with shared decision-making can facilitate achievement of fer

134 By doing so, informed decisions and shared decision-making can take place.

135 d dissemination of evidence, and support for shared decision making) can be smaller, but better direc

136 This provides valuable information for shared decision making, comparative effectiveness resear

137 Can an oncologist doing shared decision making connect with patients via treatme

138 hould guide the selection of treatments in a shared decision-making continuum.

139 and a urologist-discuss the key points of a shared decision-making conversation about PSA-based pros

140 with type 2 diabetes-should be engaged in a shared decision-making conversation about the risks and

141 s and health care providers should engage in shared decision-making conversations that include full d

142 bariatric surgery are needed to better guide shared decision-making conversations.

143 this scalable web-based platform, a general shared decision-making core structure would accommodate

144 xisting evidence regarding interprofessional shared decision-making, describe its principles and prov

145 index may play a useful role in facilitating shared decision making, developing and implementing risk

146 ngagement of the patient by the clinician in shared decision making did not change with use of the DA

147 These findings can inform shared decision-making discussions with patients who are

148 CI could help inform treatment selection and shared decision-making discussions.

149 mation exchange within a recognised model of shared decision-making do not adequately fit with patien

150 to change surgeon communication and promote shared decision making during high-stakes surgical decis

151 (minimizing conflict of interest, respecting shared decision-making, emphasizing patient accountabili

152 primary prevention patients, this process of shared decision making establishes the appropriateness o

153 ings will facilitate informed discussion and shared decision making for future patients receiving mod

154 us was strong that patients should engage in shared decision making for genetic testing.

155 lication of clinical practice guidelines and shared decision making for implantable cardioverter defi

156 entered decision aid (PCI Choice) to promote shared decision making for patients with stable CAD.

157 high-risk women should consider integrating shared decision making for risk-reducing medication and

158 eam approach that includes clinician-patient shared decision making for the use of pharmacologic and

159 and validated a prognostic nomogram to guide shared decision making for these patients.

160 These data can contribute to shared decision-making for alcohol-related liver disease

161 es and multivessel CAD that could be used in shared decision-making for CABG versus PCI by estimating

162 owledge and greater desire to participate in shared decision-making for coronary revascularization.

163 at can be used by clinicians and patients in shared decision-making for management of stable coronary

164 uide selection of ketamine vs ECT may inform shared decision-making for patients with TRD.

165 Pediatricians can engage in shared decision-making for this process and work to help

166 deline in 7 areas: patient-centered care and shared decision making, glycemic biomarkers, hemoglobin

167 ive to one another reveals that a process of shared decision-making governs baboon movement.

168 Enhancing shared decision making has the potential to improve ment

169 ded to explore the effect and feasibility of shared decision making implementation into routine endoc

170 eetings by increasing the use of elements of shared decision-making, improving the balance between ph

171 ed statin recommendation approach may inform shared decision making in areas of uncertainty, and high

172 res to enhance efficiency, transparency, and shared decision making in donor candidate evaluation.

173 ed controlled trials favours the use of this shared decision making in other settings, populations, a

174 A patient decision aid to support shared decision making in prosthetic heart valve selecti

175 ient decision aid results in optimization of shared decision making in prosthetic heart valve selecti

176 ructure challenging conversations to promote shared decision making in the acute setting.

177 ework fostering patient-centered imaging and shared decision-making in cardiac imaging.

178 Despite low certainty, the findings support shared decision-making in high-risk horizontal transmiss

179 and improve the quality of interprofessional shared decision-making in ICUs.

180 ng futile dialysis, reducing dialysis costs, shared decision-making in kidney failure care, living do

181 educed health care utilization may help with shared decision-making in persistent atrial fibrillation

182 of a clear plan with predefined targets and shared decision-making, in a structured way.

183 imizing participation or the opportunity for shared decision-making, including discussion of informat

184 ly used for preoperative patient assessment, shared decision making, informed consent, and preoperati

185 al authority over their own medical choices, shared decision making, informed consent, and simple con

186 rapy, and explain how they would incorporate shared decision making into clinical practice.

187 ecommendations were endorsed: 1) DEFINITION: Shared decision making is a collaborative process that a

188 Shared decision making is a patient-centred approach in

189 Shared decision making is a tenet of contemporary medici

190 al process used to promote patient autonomy; shared decision making is a widely promoted ethical appr

191 Shared decision making is associated with improved patie

192 To help patients to fully participate in shared decision making is becoming an important goal in

193 Shared decision making is critical to achieve value-conc

194 Shared decision making is endorsed by critical care orga

195 Shared decision making is inadequate in intensive care u

196 Shared decision making is most appropriate in situations

197 Shared decision making is needed to support decisions ab

198 ations in endocrinology practice guidelines, shared decision making is still not routinely implemente

199 The goal of shared decision making is to match patient preferences,

200 however, there remains confusion about what shared decision making is, when it should be used, and a

201 pinion, were developed: 1) interprofessional shared decision-making is a collaborative process among

202 dentified, suggesting that interprofessional shared decision-making is associated with improved proce

203 Recent theoretical work suggests that shared decision-making is often the most efficient way f

204 Shared decision-making is recommended for critically ill

205 s for older adults with comorbid conditions, shared decision-making is recommended to ensure patients

206 Information exchange as part of shared decision-making is widely discussed in research a

207 , in association with physician judgment and shared decision-making, is sufficient to consider a prim

208 Better strategies for shared decision making may be needed when there is no ev

209 s most positive in those who had experienced shared decision-making (mean [SD] questionnaire score, 8

210 t education, engagement and self-management, shared decision-making, measurement-based care for menta

211 it therapies, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, shared decision making, medical and nursing consensus, b

212 nicians should consider an interprofessional shared decision-making model that allows for the exchang

213 itis media that empowers families by using a shared decision-making model will reduce the use of anti

214 and should promote information exchange and shared decision-making more strategically.

215 e and respect for patients in the context of shared decision making must prevail if the trust of this

216 Responsible, shared decision making on the part of physicians and pat

217 men with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision making on timing of delivery.

218 rs assessing the effect of interprofessional shared decision-making on quality of care were identifie

219 Of the 11 elements of shared decision-making, only four occurred in more than

220 d include care standardization and redesign, shared decision making, palliative care, care coordinati

221 , endocrinologists can now start to practice shared decision making, partner with their patients, and

222 arch has been integrated into strategies for shared decision-making, patient educational resources, p

223 outcomes were coping, patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, patient involvement in decision-

224 likelihood that their health information or shared decision-making preferences would be met.

225 knowledge, preferences, decisional conflict, shared decision-making, preferred treatment, and usabili

226 tient associations as well as individualized shared decision-making prior to surgery may have a posit

227 ere positively correlated with participants' shared decision making process scores (0.42 and 0.41, bo

228 ans should use as their "default" approach a shared decision making process that includes three main

229 ith a family history of CRC are invited to a shared decision making process to decide on further scre

230 2) Clinicians should engage in a shared decision making process to define overall goals o

231 tom-dependent outcomes into account in their shared decision making process.

232 should be offered to patients as part of the shared decision making process.

233 ons, should facilitate discussion during the shared decision-making process about care plans for thes

234 in the management of PDR after engaging in a shared decision-making process based on patients' adhere

235 elines should participate in an informed and shared decision-making process by discussing the potenti

236 diac disease can contribute to engaging in a shared decision-making process for sports participation

237 A shared decision-making process is a key feature and pref

238 values concordance, trust, the presence of a shared decision-making process, and patient knowledge re

239 their expectations are as a component of the shared decision-making process.

240 m and the patient is an integral part of the shared decision-making process.

241 ce of an unexpected adverse event and inform shared decision-making processes among patients, provide

242 PSCC offers opportunities for evidence-based shared decision-making, quality improvement initiatives,

243 cisional conflict, decision process quality, shared decision-making, quality of life, or preferences

244 pported by multidisciplinary counselling and shared decision-making, recognizing the importance of al

245 The purpose of this statement is to define shared decision making, recommend when shared decision m

246 Direct-to-consumer marketing and shared decision making reflect a culture where patients

247 erized decision support system to facilitate shared decision making regarding prescriptions.

248 disclosed by a genetic counselor followed by shared decision making regarding statin therapy with a p

249 d Guidelines recommend patient engagement in shared decision-making regarding coronary revascularizat

250 on adherence and actively engage patients in shared decision-making regarding their treatment.

251 These data will inform better shared decision-making regarding this common condition.

252 Although shared decision making requires clinicians to discuss th

253 Shared decision making requires understanding of the est

254 und in qualitative studies were preparation, shared decision-making roles, information, time pressure

255 Shared decision making (SDM) has been recommended as a s

256 Shared decision making (SDM) in nonmental health populat

257 rge both patient and clinician engagement in shared decision making (SDM) to promote patient-centered

258 dge, reduce decisional conflict, and promote shared decision making (SDM).

259 thalmologist-dominant decision-making (ODM), shared decision-making (SDM) and patient-dominant decisi

260 nt landscape, making it an ideal setting for shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and physic

261 Engaging in shared decision-making (SDM) can help patients understan

262 sesses its alignment with assumptions of the shared decision-making (SDM) model.

263 s to individualize risk estimates and inform shared decision-making (SDM) regarding perioperative CPR

264 Shared decision-making (SDM) requires that both physicia

265 Methods and Results An individualized shared decision-making (SDM) tool for stent selection wa

266 d standard AF care with and without use of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool.

267 adults can be difficult and may benefit from shared decision-making (SDM).

268 d individualized results with patients using shared decision-making (SDM).

269 igh health care costs to instruct them about shared decision making, self-care, and behavioral change

270 Active patients roles include participant in shared decision making, self-manager, and help and infor

271 efine shared decision making, recommend when shared decision making should be used, identify the rang

272 ith good quality of life and of death, or if shared decision-making should be encouraged in these ind

273 4) clinicians implementing interprofessional shared decision-making should consider incorporating a s

274 ectively address clinician knowledge gaps in shared decision-making skills, even in the context of ca

275 Two factors, patients' endorsement of a shared decision-making style (odds ratio 1.61, 95% confi

276 hese treatment modalities should be based on shared decision making, taking into account patient and

277 ent, patient assessment, and negotiation and shared decision making-tasks that are important to posit

278 roach can enhance patient engagement, foster shared decision-making that aligns with patient values a

279 tor, and institutional factors, and features shared decision-making that meets the needs and preferen

280 In this Personal View, we describe shared decision making, the evidence behind the approach

281 ion satisfaction, suggesting a need for more shared decision making to reduce overtreatment.

282 an equitable partnership that also includes shared decision-making to determine study direction, pla

283 hould consider engaging in interprofessional shared decision-making to promote the most appropriate a

284 potential complications to support informed, shared decision-making to reduce fears and anxieties abo

285 s) and forming collaborative partnerships (a shared decision-making tool).

286 better knowledge transfer and creation of a shared decision-making tool, we conducted qualitative in

287 ooks were embedded in daily practice but the shared decision-making tools were not.

288 of people with kidney failure chosen through shared decision making) was available in 87 (53%) of 165

289 hensive literature review and an emphasis on shared decision-making were integral in the writing of a

290 espondents reported low rates of engaging in shared decision-making when managing patients receiving

291 sing differences of opinion is important for shared decision making, whereas patients not knowing tha

292 education and the need for individualized or shared decision-making, which can decrease the extent of

293 oulder functional status, which might inform shared decision making while local recurrence analysis i

294 the magnitude of the benefit could vary and shared decision making with patients is recommended.

295 Use of WLMs requires shared decision making with the patient, which hepatolog

296 werment through self-monitoring of symptoms, shared decision making with the physician, and easily ac

297 iagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

298 agnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

299 is appropriate for all patients, engaging in shared decision-making with patients, utilizing behaviou

300 Clinical management emphasizes shared decision-making with three primary objectives: ha