Decision aids (DAs) can be effective tools in improving shared decision-making processes in a clinical setting; however, much more research needs to be done on the comparative effectiveness of different types of DAs argues Joshua Christensen and colleagues. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a clinical practice that has been established in the medical field for decades1 and is the process by which a treatment decision is made through the joint efforts of both the patient and clinician. SDM has been shown to positively affect patient outcomes such as patient knowledge, satisfaction and decisional conflict.2 While these benefits of SDM are well-established, the field is lacking when it comes to the nuanced nature of when and how SDM is achieved and the best way for clinicians to implement SDM in standard practice.3 While there is no consensus on SDM best practices, the use of DAs demonstrates effectiveness in improving the decision-making process or related outcomes in clinical settings.4 W

Decision aids (DAs) can be effective tools in improving shared decision-making processes in a clinical setting; however, much more research needs to be done on the comparative effectiveness of different types of DAs argues Joshua Christensen and colleagues. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a clinical practice that has been established in the medical field for decades1 and is the process by which a treatment decision is made through the joint efforts of both the patient and clinician. SDM has been shown to positively affect patient outcomes such as patient knowledge, satisfaction and decisional conflict.2 While these benefits of SDM are well-established, the field is lacking when it comes to the nuanced nature of when and how SDM is achieved and the best way for clinicians to implement SDM in standard practice.3 While there is no consensus on SDM best practices, the use of DAs demonstrates effectiveness in improving the decision-making process or related outcomes in clinical settings.4 W

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are ‘systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific circumstances’.1 The implementation of guidelines can help optimise resource utilisation, reduce variations in clinical practice and identify and apply evidence-based recommendations safely and effectively.2 In China, the number of guidelines is increasing annually, while low adherence remains a significant challenge. Low adherence not only wastes healthcare resources but also allows preventable deaths to occur. Addressing the poor implementation of guidelines in China is urgent. Implementation research, which is the scientific study to promote evidence-based practices into routine practice,3 may be feasible to improve guideline adherence. For example, by finding the barriers and facilitators for the guideline implementation, the implementation strategy is designed accordingly. However, in China, which has a large population

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are ‘systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific circumstances’.1 The implementation of guidelines can help optimise resource utilisation, reduce variations in clinical practice and identify and apply evidence-based recommendations safely and effectively.2 In China, the number of guidelines is increasing annually, while low adherence remains a significant challenge. Low adherence not only wastes healthcare resources but also allows preventable deaths to occur. Addressing the poor implementation of guidelines in China is urgent. Implementation research, which is the scientific study to promote evidence-based practices into routine practice,3 may be feasible to improve guideline adherence. For example, by finding the barriers and facilitators for the guideline implementation, the implementation strategy is designed accordingly. However, in China, which has a large population

Decision aids (DAs) can be effective tools in improving shared decision-making processes in a clinical setting; however, much more research needs to be done on the comparative effectiveness of different types of DAs argues Joshua Christensen and colleagues. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a clinical practice that has been established in the medical field for decades1 and is the process by which a treatment decision is made through the joint efforts of both the patient and clinician. SDM has been shown to positively affect patient outcomes such as patient knowledge, satisfaction and decisional conflict.2 While these benefits of SDM are well-established, the field is lacking when it comes to the nuanced nature of when and how SDM is achieved and the best way for clinicians to implement SDM in standard practice.3 While there is no consensus on SDM best practices, the use of DAs demonstrates effectiveness in improving the decision-making process or related outcomes in clinical settings.4 W

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are ‘systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific circumstances’.1 The implementation of guidelines can help optimise resource utilisation, reduce variations in clinical practice and identify and apply evidence-based recommendations safely and effectively.2 In China, the number of guidelines is increasing annually, while low adherence remains a significant challenge. Low adherence not only wastes healthcare resources but also allows preventable deaths to occur. Addressing the poor implementation of guidelines in China is urgent. Implementation research, which is the scientific study to promote evidence-based practices into routine practice,3 may be feasible to improve guideline adherence. For example, by finding the barriers and facilitators for the guideline implementation, the implementation strategy is designed accordingly. However, in China, which has a large population

Decision aids (DAs) can be effective tools in improving shared decision-making processes in a clinical setting; however, much more research needs to be done on the comparative effectiveness of different types of DAs argues Joshua Christensen and colleagues. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a clinical practice that has been established in the medical field for decades1 and is the process by which a treatment decision is made through the joint efforts of both the patient and clinician. SDM has been shown to positively affect patient outcomes such as patient knowledge, satisfaction and decisional conflict.2 While these benefits of SDM are well-established, the field is lacking when it comes to the nuanced nature of when and how SDM is achieved and the best way for clinicians to implement SDM in standard practice.3 While there is no consensus on SDM best practices, the use of DAs demonstrates effectiveness in improving the decision-making process or related outcomes in clinical settings.4 W