ReviewJournal of hospice and palliative care2025
Shared Decision-Making with Palliative Care Specialist.
Review in Journal of hospice and palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current status and global trends in self-care among patients with heart failure: challenges and opportunities.The journal of cardiovascular aging · 2026Article
- Motivation and challenges in decision making for gastrostomy tube placement and use: a focus on patients with cancer and dysphagia.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Palliative Care in Advanced Heart Failure.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare professionals regarding palliative care family meetings: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Gut microbiome in sepsis: from dysbiotic biomarker to precision and palliative decision-making.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shared decision-making (SDM) represents a central framework for achieving person-centered, value-concordant care in palliative and end-of-life settings. This review synthesizes current SDM concepts, practical models, and future directions relevant to palliative care specialists. Foundational models, such as the three-talk framework and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, emphasize iterative dialogue, informed preferences, and relational trust. In clinical practice, SDM is integrated with adaptive interdisciplinary approaches that align immediate treatment choices with long-term goals, particularly when combined with advance care planning. Examples such as SDM involving oncologists and palliative care specialists, as well as telehealth-based family conferences, illustrate measurable benefits in documentation, communication, and palliative engagement. Future priorities include addressing emotional distress, improving health literacy, and embracing relational autonomy in diverse cultural contexts. Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, large language models, and immersive virtual reality may offer promising tools for visualizing prognostic trajectories, supporting reflection, and enhancing empathy. Ultimately, SDM in palliative care transforms decision-making from a technical act into a moral and relational process, uniting evidence, compassion, and shared meaning to ensure that every medical choice honors the patient's dignity and values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.