Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41368514›Full record

ReviewJournal of hospice and palliative care2025

Shared Decision-Making with Palliative Care Specialist.

Hsien-Liang Huang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Palliative Care in Advanced Heart Failure.Current heart failure reports · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Hsien-Liang HuangDepartment of Family Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2163-5596

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Advance care planningPalliative carePatient care planningShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID41368514
PMCPMC12683174

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.