Article Text

Download PDFPDF
236 What is the benefit of shared decision-making? Towards a consensus statement symposium
  1. Fülöp Scheibler1,2,
  2. Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez3,4,5,
  3. Paulina Bravo6,
  4. Kirsten Mccaffery7,
  5. Glyn Elwyn8,9,10,
  6. Mirjam Garvelink11,12,
  7. Marla Clayman13,14,
  8. Karina Dahl Steffensen15,16,
  9. Arwen H Pieterse17,18,
  10. Felix Wehking10,
  11. Adrian Edwards20,
  12. Jens Ulrich Rüffer21,2,
  13. Martin Härter22,
  14. Friedemann Geiger1
  1. 1National Competency Center for Shared Decision Making, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
  2. 2SHARE TO CARE. Patientenzentrierte Versorgung GmbH, Cologne, Germany
  3. 3Evaluation Unit (SESCS), Canary Islands Health Service (SCS), Tenerife, Spain
  4. 4The Spanish Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and Services of the National Health System (RedETS), Madrid, Spain
  5. 5Network for Research on Chronicity, Primary Care, and Health Promotion (RICAPPS), Madrid, Spain
  6. 6Department of Cancer Education and Prevention, Fundación Arturo López Pérez, Chile
  7. 7Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
  8. 8The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, USA
  9. 9Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Netherlands
  10. 10University College London, UK
  11. 11Department of Value Based Improvement, St. Antonius Ziekenhuis: Nieuwegein, Netherlands
  12. 12Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Netherlands
  13. 13Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), Veterans Administration, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA
  14. 14Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
  15. 15Center for Shared Decision Making, Lillebaelt Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark
  16. 16Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  17. 17Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, The Netherlands
  18. 18Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway
  19. 19Department of Emergency Medicine at University Hospital Jena, Germany
  20. 20Division of Population Medicine, PRIME Centre UK
  21. 21TAKEPART Media + Science GmbH, Cologne, Germany
  22. 22Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany


Introduction The German health technology assessment (HTA) agency Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) has recently published a preliminary HTA report on benefits and risks of shared deci-sion- making (SDM). It concludes there is no proven effect of SDM regarding morbidity, mortality, or health related quality of life. Therefore, it did not derive a benefit of SDM.

By contrast, the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) came to the opposite conclusion in its SDM guideline 2021. Based on two systematic reviews, it recommends implementa- tion of training for professionals, decision aids, and to embed SDM in organizational culture and prac- tices.

Reports from National HTA institutions have major impact on legislation, funding, and adoption of in- terventions such as SDM. Having a consensus on appropriate outcomes and assessment measures is vital for the cause of SDM. The aim of the symposium is to present the considerations of interna-tional players in the last months, to collect further arguments and to adopt a joint statement.


  1. Introduction: IQWiG report and its conclusions

  2. Presentations of international viewpoints

    • reactions from German professional organizations

    • perspectives of patients and clinicians

    • perspective of the national health services (value based healthcare, quality management, core outcome sets, etc.)

    • ethical and legal perspective

    • methodological viewpoints (logic models, outcome and study type issues)

  3. Interactive discussion: shaping the future of SDM outcome definition and assessment

  4. Building consensus: Towards an ISDM Society consensus statement

Expected Results The symposium results will be transferred into a consensus paper on whether and, if so, how benefit assessment of SDM regarding outcomes and measures should be done. This can inform future bene- fit assessments and provide a solid basis for implementation of SDM. It will also identify research gaps regarding outcome definition and evaluation measures needing attention from the research community.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.