Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 31, 2026

The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients
Published on: June 12, 2020
Shared Decision Making and the Use of Decision Aids
Martin Härter1, Angela Buchholz, Jennifer Nicolai
1Department of Medical Psychology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Department of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital of Freiburg, Celenus-Kliniken GmbH, Offenburg, Practice for Gastroenterology & Oncology, Schwetzingen.
Background:
In shared decision making (SDM), the patient and the physician reach decisions in partnership. We conducted a trial of SDM training for physicians who treat patients with cancer.
Methods:
Physicians who treat patients with cancer were invited to participate in a cluster-randomized trial and carry out SDM together with breast or colon cancer patients who faced decisions about their treatment. Decision-related physician-patient conversations were recorded. The patients filled out questionnaires immediately after the consultations (T1) and three months later (T2). The primary endpoints were the patients' confidence in and satisfaction with the decisions taken. The secondary endpoints were the process of decision making, anxiety, depression, quality of life, and externally assessed physician competence in SDM. The physicians in the intervention group underwent 12 hours of training in SDM, including the use of decision aids.
Results:
Of the 900 physicians invited to participated in the trial, 105 answered the invitation. 86 were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group (44 and 42 physicians, respectively); 33 of the 86 physicians recruited at least one patient for the trial. A total of 160 patients participated in the trial, of whom 55 were treated by physicians in the intervention group. There were no intergroup differences in the primary endpoints. Trained physicians were more competent in SDM (Cohen's d = 0.56; p<0.05). Patients treated by trained physicians had lower anxiety and depression scores immediately after the consultation (d = -0.12 and -0.14, respectively; p<0.10), and markedly lower anxiety and depression scores three months later (d = -0.94 and -0.67, p<0.01).
Conclusion:
When physicians treating cancer patients improve their competence in SDM by appropriate training, their patients may suffer less anxiety and depression. These effects merit further study.
More Related Videos
07:05Operant Protocols for Assessing the Cost-benefit Analysis During Reinforced Decision Making by Rodents
Published on: September 10, 2018
06:11High-definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex to Enhance Metacognitive Sensitivity
Published on: September 26, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Decision Making
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Decision Making: P-value Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can...
Self-Help Support Groups
Accessibility and Cost-Effectiveness
One of the primary strengths of self-help...
Heuristics
People often rely on heuristics when faced with an overload of information, limited time, low importance of the decision, limited information, or when a heuristic readily comes to mind. For...
Ethical Dilemmas II