Although many clinicians feel they already use shared decision making, research shows a perception-reality gap. A M Stiggelbout and colleagues discuss why it is important and highlight some best practices

Background: Few prospective studies have been performed about the impact of preoperative radiotherapy (PRT) or total mesorectal excision (TME) on health-related quality of life (HRQL) and sexual functioning in patients with resectable rectal cancer. This report describes the HRQL and sexual functioning of 990 patients who underwent TME and were randomly assigned to short-term PRT (5 × 5 Gy). Patients and Methods: The Rotterdam Symptom Check List supplemented with additional items was used with questionnaires before treatment and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery. Patients without a recurrence the first 2 years were analyzed (n = 990). Results: Few differences were found in HRQL between patients treated with or without PRT. Daily activities were significantly less for PRT patients 3 months postoperatively. Irradiated patients recovered slower from defecation problems than TME-only patients (P = .006). PRT had a negative effect on sexual functioning in males (P = .004) and females (P < .001). Irradiated males had more ejaculation disorders (P = .002), and erectile functioning deteriorated over time (P < .001). PRT had similar effects in patients who underwent a low anterior resection (LAR) versus an abdominoperineal resection (APR). Patients with an APR scored better on the physical (P = .004) and psychologic dimension (P = .007) than LAR patients, but worse on voiding (P = .0007). Conclusion: Short-term PRT leads to more sexual dysfunction, slower recovery of bowel function, and impaired daily activity postoperatively. However, this does not seriously affect HRQL. The comparison between LAR and APR patients demonstrates that the existence of a permanent stoma is not the only determinant of HRQL.

Objectives: To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting.Design: Systematic review.Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM.Information sources: Academic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019.Results: Forty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall, Describe treatment optionswas the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were:Make the decision (75%),Patient preferences (65%),Tailor information (65%),Deliberate (58%), Create choice awareness (55%), andLearn about the patient(53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time,Describe treatment optionsandMake the decisionare the two components which are present in most models in any time period.Create choice awarenessstood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time.Conclusions: This review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key.Trial registration: PROSPERO registration CRD42015019740