Background: Shared Decision-making (SDM), a medical decision-making model, was popularized in the late 1980s in reaction to then predominate paternalistic decision-making, aiming to better meet the needs of patients. Extensive research has been conducted internationally examining the benefits of SDM implementation; however, existing theory on how SDM works, for whom, in which circumstances, and why is limited. While literature has shown positive patient, health care provider, and system benefits (SDM outputs), further research is required to understand the nuances of this type of decision-making. As such, we set out to address: "In which situations, how, why, and for whom does SDM between patients and health care providers contribute to improved engagement in the Shared Decision-making process?" Methods: To achieve our study goals we conducted a seven-step realist synthesis process, which included: (1) preliminary program theory development, (2) search strategy development, (3) selection and appraisal of literature in accordance with realist methodology, (4) data extraction, (5) identification of relevant formal theories, (6) data analysis and synthesis, and (7) formation of a revised program theory with the input of stakeholders. This process was done in accordance with RAMESES guidelines and publication standards for a realist synthesis. Expert consultations were also held to ensure consistency within the SDM literature. Results: Through our realist synthesis, we developed a program theory of SDM which includes three contexts (preexisting relationship, difficulty of decision, and system support), eight mechanism sets (anxiety, trust, perception of other party capacity, perception of time, self-efficacy, world view, perception of capacity to external support, and recognition of decision), and one outcome (engagement in SDM). Conclusions: As far as the authors of this paper are aware, this paper is the first to begin unpacking how SDM works, for whom, in which circumstances, and why. By examining key mechanism sets and exploring how they facilitate or inhibit SDM, we have produced a program theory that may assist health care professionals, policy makers, and patients. While further research is suggested to further unpack the concepts identified within this paper, this provides an initial understanding into the theory behind SDM.

Transcribed segments of audio recordings from the early, middle, and late stages of successful and unsuccessful therapy were broken down into thought units and coded on the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior. Consecutive therapist and client thought units were paired and scored for level of complementarity and antitheses. The correspondence between positive and negative complementarity and antitheses, and types of therapeutic work in which dyads engage during different stages of psychotherapy is discussed.

No abstract

Models of patient-physician decision making are typically framed on a continuum of discourses and practices ranging from patient autonomy to physician paternalism, with the middle ground being occupied by terms such as shared decision making. Critiques of these models center on the gulf between these idealized models and actual practice and on how context influences decision-making practices. In this article I focus on how 11 Canadian family physicians talked about patient-physician decision making in interviews about their diagnostic and treatment practices for depression. I adopt a discursive approach to analyzing extracts from these interviews, and show how these physicians constructed themselves as engaging in acts of professional judgment and persuasion, and patients as having the final say in decision making about treatment for depression. I argue that whether the intertwining of discourses of physician influence and patient autonomy is understood as a balance of power between physicians and patients is an open question.

BackgroundThe practicality of applying evidence to healthcare systems with the aim of implementing change is an ongoing challenge for practitioners, policy makers, and academics. Shared decision- making (SDM), a method of medical decision-making that allows a balanced relationship between patients, physicians, and other key players in the medical decision process, is purported to improve patient and system outcomes. Despite the oft-mentioned benefits, there are gaps in the current literature between theory and implementation that would benefit from a realist approach given the value of this methodology to analyze complex interventions. In this protocol, we outline a study that will explore: “In which situations, how, why, and for whom does SDM between patients and health care providers contribute to improved decision making?”MethodsA seven step iterative process will be described including preliminary theory development, establishment of a search strategy, selection and appraisal of literature, data extraction, analysis and synthesis of extracted results from literature, and formation of a revised program theory with the input of patients, physicians, nurse navigators, and policy makers from a stakeholder session.DiscussionThe goal of the realist review will be to identify and refine a program theory for SDM through the identification of mechanisms which shape the characteristics of when, how, and why SDM will, and will not, work.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017062609 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0508-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.