Background. Awareness of shared decision making (SDM) is growing, but its integration into clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) remains challenging. We sought expert insights to identify strategies for more successfully integrating SDM and decision support tools into CPGs. Specifically, our objectives were to determine 1) how to identify CPG recommendations where SDM is most relevant and 2) what factors in CPG development hinder or facilitate the consideration of SDM and the development of decision support tools. Methods. We conducted semi-structured interviews with experts on CPGs and SDM. We analyzed the data using Mayring’s qualitative content analysis. Results. The 16 interviewed participants proposed several determinants of and strategies for identifying SDM-relevant recommendations. The most frequently mentioned determinant was “multiple options with benefits and harms where choices depend on individual preferences.” The most frequently mentioned strategy was prioritization, similar to the CPG scoping phase. Participants highlighted the role of patient partners in facilitating the consideration of SDM in CPG development but noted that a supportive culture toward both patient and public involvement and SDM is needed. The absence of standardized methods and inadequate resources hinder the consideration of SDM and the combined development of CPGs and decision support tools. The current format of CPGs was deemed overwhelming, while the inclusion of choice awareness in CPG recommendations could facilitate SDM. Conclusions. The identified strategies provide a starting point for CPG organizations to explore ways for integrating SDM and decision support tools into CPGs while considering context-specific barriers and facilitators. Implications. Further research is needed to assess the usefulness and feasibility of the proposed strategies. New policies and stronger collaboration between CPG and SDM communities appear to be needed to address identified barriers.
Highlights
We explored expert knowledge and experience on how to successfully integrate shared decision making (SDM) and decision support tools into clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).
A combined development of CPGs and decision support tools was deemed essential; however, development processes often remain separate, with the CPG development group unaware of the decision support tool development group, and vice versa.
In addition to stating choice awareness in CPGs, participants highlighted the critical role of patient partners in considering SDM in CPG development, but resource issues and a culture that neglects patient involvement and SDM remain.
For CPG development groups to consider SDM and for health care professionals to practice it, things need to be as easy as possible.
SteinbergEGreenfieldSWolmanDMMancherMGrahamR.Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2011.
2.
QaseemAForlandFMacbethFOllenschlägerGPhillipsSvan der WeesP.Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):525–31.
3.
van der WeijdenTBoivinABurgersJSchünemannHJElwynG.Clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids. An inevitable relationship. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):584–9.
4.
ElwynGWieringaSGreenhalghT.Clinical encounters in the post-guidelines era. BMJ. 2016;353:i3200.
5.
HeenAFVandvikPOBrandtL, et al. A framework for practical issues was developed to inform shared decision-making tools and clinical guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:104–13.
6.
ElwynGDurandMASongJ, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;359:j4891.
Work Group of the Methodological Manual. Aplicación de las Recomendaciones de las Guías de Práctica Clínica a la Toma de Decisiones Compartida. Manual Metodológico [Implementation of clinical practice guidelines recommendations in shared decision-making]. 2022. Available from: https://portal.guiasalud.es/egpc/manual_hatdc_introduccion/.
9.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE decision aid: process guide. 2023. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg42. [Accessed 20 February, 2024].
10.
DavidsonKWMangioneCMBarryMJ, et al. Collaboration and shared decision-making between patients and clinicians in preventive health care decisions and US preventive services task force recommendations. JAMA. 2022;327(12):1171–6.
11.
LégaréFRattéSGravelKGrahamID.Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):526–35.
12.
MolemanMRegeerBJSchuitmaker-WarnaarTJ.Shared decision-making and the nuances of clinical work: concepts, barriers and opportunities for a dynamic model. J Eval Clin Pract. 2021;27(4):926–34.
13.
WegwarthOSchwartzLMWoloshinSGaissmaierWGigerenzerG.Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):340–9.
14.
HoffmannTCDel MarC.Clinicians’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3):407–19.
15.
TreadwellJSWongGMilburn-CurtisCFeakinsBGreenhalghT.GPs’ understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for long-term conditions: an online survey. BJGP Open. 2020;4(1):bjgpopen20X101016.
16.
ScheiblerFGeigerFWehkampK, et al. Patient-reported effects of hospital-wide implementation of shared decision-making at a university medical centre in Germany: a pre–post trial. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024;29(2):87–95.
17.
BruchJDKhazenMMahmic-KaknjoMLégaréFEllenME.The effects of shared decision making on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time: an umbrella review. Patient Educ Couns. 2024;129:108408.
18.
FaimanBTarimanJD.Shared decision making: improving patient outcomes by understanding the benefits of and barriers to effective communication. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2019;23(5):540–2.
19.
KeijSMvan Duijn-BakkerNStiggelboutAMPieterseAH.What makes a patient ready for shared decision making? A qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(3):571–7.
20.
Maes-CarballoMGarcía-GarcíaMGómez-FandiñoY, et al. Systematic review of shared decision-making in guidelines about colorectal cancer screening. Eur J Cancer Care. 2022;31(6):e13738.
21.
Maes-CarballoMMuñoz-NúñezIMartín-DíazMMigniniLBueno-CavanillasAKhanKS.Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review. Health Expect. 2020;23(5):1045–64.
22.
Maes-CarballoMGómez-FandiñoYGarcía-GarcíaM, et al. Colorectal cancer treatment guidelines and shared decision making quality and reporting assessment: systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2023;115:107856.
23.
Maes-CarballoMMoreno-AsencioTMartín-DíazMMigniniLBueno-CavanillasAKhanKS.Shared decision making in breast cancer screening guidelines: a systematic review of their quality and reporting. Eur J Public Health. 2021;31(4):873–83.
24.
GärtnerFRPortieljeJELangendamM, et al. Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e032483.
van der WeijdenTPieterseAHKoelewijn-van LoonMS, et al. How can clinical practice guidelines be adapted to facilitate shared decision making? A qualitative key-informant study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(10):855–63.
27.
FischerLScheweLVScheiblerF, et al. Scoping review indicates heterogeneous methods for developing and integrating patient decision aids in the context of clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025;181:111708.
28.
DreesensDKremerLvan der WeijdenT.The Dutch chaos case: a scoping review of knowledge and decision support tools available to clinicians in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2019;123(12):1288–97.
29.
DreesensDStiggelboutAAgoritsasT, et al. A conceptual framework for patient-directed knowledge tools to support patient-centred care: results from an evidence-informed consensus meeting. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(10):1898–904.
30.
International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. IPDAS 2005: criteria for judging the quality of patient decision aids. 2005. Available from: http://ipdas.ohri.ca/using.html.
31.
Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin. An introduction to patient decision aids. BMJ. 2013;347:f4147.
32.
StaceyDLewisKBSmithM, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;1(1):CD001431.
33.
StaceyDSuwalskaVBolandLLewisKBPresseauJThomsonR.Are patient decision aids used in clinical practice after rigorous evaluation? A survey of trial authors. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(7):805–15.
34.
ElwynGSchollITietbohlC, et al. “Many miles to go …”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(suppl 2):S14.
35.
AnkolekarADekkerAFijtenRBerlangaA.The benefits and challenges of using patient decision aids to support shared decision making in health care. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2018;2:1–10.
36.
FischerLScheiblerFSchaeferC, et al. Fostering shared decision-making between patients and health care professionals in clinical practice guidelines: protocol for a project to develop and test a tool for guideline developers. JMIR Res Protoc. 2024;13:e57611.
37.
TongASainsburyPCraigJ.Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.
38.
PattonMQ.Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1990.
39.
van der HorstDEMGarvelinkMMBosWJWStiggelboutAMPieterseAH.For which decisions is shared decision making considered appropriate? A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2023;106:3–16.
PrzyborskiAWohlrab-SahrM.Qualitative Sozialforschung: Ein Arbeitsbuch. Berlin: De Gruyter; 2021.
42.
PolitiMCHoustenAJForcinoRCJansenJElwynG.Discussing cost and value in patient decision aids and shared decision making: a call to action. MDM Policy Pract. 2023;8(1):23814683221148651.
43.
GagliardiARBrouwersMCPaldaVALemieux-CharlesLGrimshawJM.How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):26.
44.
ZhouPChenLWuZ, et al. The barriers and facilitators for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in healthcare: an umbrella review of qualitative and quantitative literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;162:169–81.
45.
CorreaVCLugo-AgudeloLHAguirre-AcevedoDC, et al. Individual, health system, and contextual barriers and facilitators for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic metareview. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):74.
46.
ShehuEKuglerCMSchäferN, et al. Barriers and facilitators of adherence to clinical practice guidelines in Germany—a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract. 31(3):e14173.
47.
WaddellALennoxASpassovaGBraggeP.Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in hospitals from policy to practice: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):74.
48.
van BroekhovenJFAGvan HeeschFASMulderSHermensRvan der WeesPvan der KolkM.Barriers and facilitators of healthcare professionals in integrating shared decision-making in pancreatic cancer treatment: a network approach. Cancer Med. 2024;13(19):e70218.
49.
BryantEAScottAMGreenwoodHThomasR.Patient and public involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(9):e055428.
50.
OllenschlägerGWirthTSchwarzSTrifyllisJSchaeferC.Patient involvement in clinical practice guidelines is poor after 12 years of German guideline standards: a review of guideline methodologies [in German]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018;135–136:50–5.
51.
ArmstrongMJBloomJA.Patient involvement in guidelines is poor five years after institute of medicine standards: review of guideline methodologies. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:19.
52.
Pfisterer-HeiseSOrduhanCGoossenK, et al. Patient involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines in Germany—a meta-research study. Clin Public Health Guidelines. 2025;2(2):e70016.
53.
Guidelines International Network (GIN). GIN public toolkit: patient and public involvement in guidelines. 2021. Available from: https://g-i-n.net/toolkit.
54.
HalbigCMeyerG.Involvement of patient representatives in clinical practice guideline development: a qualitative study. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundheitswes. 2014;108(10):587–93.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
