Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 13, 2026

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes
L Aubree Shay1, Jennifer Elston Lafata2
1University of Texas School of Public Health, Center for Health Promotions and Research, San Antonio, TX (LAS)
Background:
Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the empirical evidence linking patient outcomes and SDM, when the decision-making process has been explicitly measured, and to identify under what measurement perspectives SDM is associated with which types of patient outcomes (affective-cognitive, behavioral, and health).
Data Sources:
PubMed (through December 2012) and hand search of article bibliographies.
Study Selection:
Studies were included if they empirically 1) measured SDM in the context of a patient-clinician interaction and 2) evaluated the relationship between SDM and at least 1 patient outcome.
Data Extraction:
Study results were categorized by SDM measurement perspective (patient-reported, clinician-reported, or observer-rated) and outcome type (affective-cognitive, behavioral, or health).
Data Synthesis:
Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-three used patient-reported measures of SDM, 6 used observer-rated measures, and 2 used clinician-reported measures. Ninety-seven unique patient outcomes were assessed; 51% affective-cognitive, 28% behavioral, and 21% health. Only 43% of assessments (n = 42) found a significant and positive relationship between SDM and the patient outcome. This proportion varied by SDM measurement perspective and outcome category. It was found that 52% of outcomes assessed with patient-reported SDM were significant and positive, compared with 21% with observer-rated and 0% with clinician-reported SDM. Regardless of measurement perspective, SDM was most likely to be associated with affective-cognitive patient outcomes (54%), compared with 37% of behavioral and 25% of health outcomes.
Limitations:
The relatively small number of studies precludes meta-analysis. Because the study inclusion and exclusion criteria required both an empirical measure of SDM and an assessment of the association between that measure and a patient outcome, most included studies were observational in design.
Conclusions:
SDM, when perceived by patients as occurring, tends to result in improved affective-cognitive outcomes. Evidence is lacking for the association between empirical measures of SDM and patient behavioral and health outcomes.
Related Concept Videos
Health Literacy
Patient-centered Care
Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care evaluation by...
Methods of Documentation V: CBE
In CBE, healthcare professionals establish predefined standards of practice that define what constitutes...
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic illness...
Nursing Clinical Information System
A Nursing Clinical Information System (NCIS) is a specialized type of healthcare information system tailored to meet the unique needs of nursing practice. It incorporates the principles of nursing informatics to streamline information management and improve the quality of care delivery.
Critical attributes of NCIS include: