EDITORIAL: THE LOGIC AND LIMITS OF SHARED DECISION MAKING

Abstract

No AccessJournal of UrologyPEDIATRIC UROLOGY: Editorial1 Jul 2001EDITORIAL: THE LOGIC AND LIMITS OF SHARED DECISION MAKING Steven H. Woolf Steven H. WoolfSteven H. Woolf More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66136-8AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "EDITORIAL: THE LOGIC AND LIMITS OF SHARED DECISION MAKING." The Journal of Urology, 166(1), pp. 244–245 References 1 : Patient-centered medicine. A professional evolution. JAMA1996; 275: 152. Google Scholar 2 : Incorporating patients’ preferences into medical decisions. N Engl J Med1994; 330: 1895. Google Scholar 3 : Women’s and physicians’ utilities for health outcomes in estrogen replacement therapy. J Gen Intern Med1987; 2: 178. Google Scholar 4 : Preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: physician-patient agreement and hospital resource use. J Gen Intern Med1995; 10: 179. Google Scholar 5 : Shared decision-making: the case for letting patients decide which choice is best. J Fam Pract1997; 45: 205. Google Scholar 6 : Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med1999; 17: 285. Google Scholar 7 : Pediatric Vesicoureteral Reflux Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of primary vesicoureteral reflux in children. J Urol1997; 157: 1846. Link, Google Scholar 8 Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) best practice policy. American Urological Association. Oncology2000; 14: 267. Google Scholar 9 : American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers. CA Cancer J Clin2001; 51: 38. Google Scholar 10 Screening for prostate cancer. American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med1997; 126: 480. Google Scholar 11 : AAFP summary of policy recommendations for periodic health examination. 1999–2000 AAFP Reference Manual—Clinical Policies. Kansas City: American Academy of Family Physicians2000: 14. Google Scholar 12 : Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel Summary report on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol1995; 154: 2144. Link, Google Scholar 13 : Benign prostatic hyperplasia: diagnosis and treatment. Clinical Practice Guideline No. 8. AHCPR publication no. 94-0582. Rockville: Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research1994: 5. Google Scholar 14 : Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology1997; 112: 594. Google Scholar 15 NIH Consensus Statement. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40–49. NIH Consensus Statement1997; 15: 1. Google Scholar 16 : American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on breast cancer risk reduction strategies: tamoxifen and raloxifene. J Clin Oncol1999; 17: 1939. Google Scholar 17 Guidelines for counseling postmenopausal women about preventive hormone therapy. American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med1992; 117: 1038. Google Scholar 18 : Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA1999; 282: 2313. Google Scholar 19 : Patient choice modules for summaries of clinical effectiveness: a proposal. BMJ2001; 322: 664. Google Scholar 20 : Contentious screening decisions: does the choice matter?. N Engl J Med1997; 336: 1243. Google Scholar 21 : Do patients want to participate in medical decision making?. JAMA1984; 252: 2990. Google Scholar 22 : What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making?. Arch Intern Med1996; 156: 1414. Google Scholar 23 : Perils, pitfalls, and possibilities in talking about medical risk. JAMA1999; 281: 1037. Google Scholar 24 : The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med1997; 127: 966. Google Scholar 25 : Patient preferences for colon cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med1999; 14: 432. Google Scholar 26 : How age, outcome severity, and scale influence general medicine clinic patients’ interpretations of verbal probability terms. J Gen Intern Med1994; 9: 268. Google Scholar 27 : Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ1999; 319: 731. Google Scholar 28 : Decision-aids for prostate cancer screening. J Fam Pract2000; 49: 425. Google Scholar Department of Family Practice Virginia Commonwealth University Fairfax, Virginia© 2001 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byKirsch A (2018) Editorial CommentJournal of Urology, VOL. 180, NO. 2, (705-705), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2008. Volume 166Issue 1July 2001Page: 244-245 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2001 by American Urological Association, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Steven H. Woolf More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...