The Karma system is currently undergoing maintenance (Monday, January 29, 2018).
The maintenance period has been extended to 8PM EST.
Karma Credits will not be available for redeeming during maintenance.
The Journal of Participatory Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open access journal with the mission to advance the understanding and practice of participatory medicine among health care professionals and patients.
It is the Official Journal of the Society for Participatory Medicine.
The Journal's mission is to transform the culture of medicine by providing an evidence base for participatory health and medicine. It aims to advance both science and practice, focusing on six content areas: research articles, editorials, narratives, case reports, reviews, and updates on related research in other media. It explores how participation affects outcomes, resources, and relationships in healthcare; which interventions increase participation; and the types of evidence that provide the most reliable answers.
JoPM was self-published between 2009-2017 by the Society of Participatory Medicine, publishing over 200 peer-reviewed articles (Archive of pre-2017 articles). Since 2017, the journal is now proudly published by JMIR Publications, with the Society retaining editorial control (see joint SPM/JMIR Press Release).
All articles submitted after August 2017 are carefully copyedited and typeset, and XML-tagged for submission in PubMed Central and PubMed.
There are no publishing charges for unfunded research. There is a modest Article Processing Fee ($1500) in case of acceptance for grant-funded research or where authors have access to an institutional open access funds, e.g. COMPACT/COPE signatories.
Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)
Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process in which health care providers and patients relate to and influence each other as they collaborate in making decisions about patients’ health ca...
Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process in which health care providers and patients relate to and influence each other as they collaborate in making decisions about patients’ health care. Hypothesized as a means to improve quality of care, successful applications of SDM in routine cancer care have not been widely documented. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the literature to determine if elements of SDM implementation between cancer patients and their clinicians were more or less successful at improving the quality of care and health outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature search of SDM approaches and outcomes in cancer care was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE. An integrative model for SDM was used to classify elements included in SDM intervention studies and the resulting outcomes. Results: From 1,018 unique publications, 23 articles meeting eligibility criteria were included. Only three studies addressed elements of patient-clinician interaction as part of the study objectives. Interventions included decision aid (DA) evaluation (n=22) and clinician communication training (n=1). SDM elements commonly included were: defining/explaining the problem (n=23); presenting options (n=19); discussing pros and cons (n=17); assessing patient priorities and preferences (n=17); clinician knowledge and recommendations (n=15); and making or deferring treatment decisions (n=12). The most frequently-measured outcomes were patient-reported outcomes including treatment preference or decision (n=12), decisional conflict (n=10), patient satisfaction (n=10), patient participation (n=9), and patient knowledge (n=7). No clear patterns demonstrating relationships between SDM elements and outcomes were identified. Information on how patients and clinicians utilized DA information to promote SDM was limited. Conclusions: Evaluation of SDM in cancer care has been increasing. However, the term “SDM” was generally applied to studies that focused on the development and/or evaluation of DAs which limited the current analyses to a review of SDM elements as part of the DAs. Most studies did not include a qualitative or quantitative measure of SDM specific to patient-clinician communication and interaction. Instead, there was an underlying assumption that SDM occurred organically with DA implementation. Without a qualitative or quantitative measure of SDM, identification of successful SDM elements and their relationships to patient outcomes remains unclear. Additional research is warranted on SDM implementation and measurement in real-world cancer care settings.