Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40873791›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025

Shared decision making - a review of its evaluation, efficacy, and applicability in asthma.

Adrianna Piątkowska, Kamil Marszałek, Natalia Krupińska, Elizabeth Malaya, Magdalena Adamczewska, Piotr Kuna, Michał Panek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Adrianna PiątkowskaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Kamil MarszałekDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Natalia KrupińskaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Elizabeth MalayaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Magdalena AdamczewskaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Piotr KunaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Michał PanekDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the years, the approach to medical decision-making has evolved significantly-from the traditional paternalistic model, in which decisions were made on behalf of the patient, to Shared Decision Making (SDM), which actively involves patients in the process. Given that a strong patient-healthcare provider relationship is a key factor in effective treatment, the literature increasingly highlights the importance of incorporating patient preferences. To achieve this, patients must receive clear explanations about their condition and treatment options, as well as care plans tailored to their individual needs. This is particularly relevant in conditions requiring long-term treatment, where outcomes depend heavily on patient adherence, motivation, and consistency. Chronic diseases like asthma require ongoing cooperation and trust between patients and healthcare providers. Asthma, one of the most common chronic respiratory conditions, has no curative treatment; its management relies on daily inhaled medications to control symptoms and prevent exacerbations. Several models have been developed to structure SDM implementation, ranging from basic frameworks promoting engagement to comprehensive approaches emphasizing environmental readiness and professional education. Key components include blended learning for healthcare providers and standardized tools to operationalize SDM, such as Patient Decision Aids (e.g., Written Asthma Action Plans) and multilingual resources like "Asthma Australia." These tools are particularly valuable in overcoming barriers such as language and cultural differences, which can hinder access to care-especially for minority groups. Discrimination and lack of tailored communication can disproportionately affect patients with intellectual disabilities and those from culturally diverse backgrounds, highlighting the need for inclusive, individualized approaches in SDM-based chronic disease care. Although SDM shows promise in improving patient satisfaction, adherence, and potentially reducing healthcare costs, robust evidence remains limited. Global studies are needed to assess its true efficacy across various chronic conditions. This review aims to systematically analyze SDM models described in the literature, align them with asthma management requirements, incorporate patient needs and expectations, and propose practical strategies for integrating SDM in asthma care and other chronic respiratory diseases. Trust in healthcare providers is associated with improved health outcomes and increased treatment adherence, like for example "Asthma Australia" barriers to satisfactory care remain, particularly for patients from minority groups, who often face linguistic challenges, The structured integration of Shared Decision-Making (SDM). Although SDM has the potential to enhance patient satisfaction, improve adherence, and reduce healthcare costs is promising, conclusive evidence remains limited. The potential gain is not however excluded. There is a need for more data from studies on global scale to objectively determine its efficacy and applicability in various chronic conditions.

Indexed as

asthmacommunicationpatient-centeredpatient-physician partnershipshared-decision making

Identifiers

PMID40873791
PMCPMC12378715

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.