Implementation Of Shared Decision-making Research Articles

Moving towards patient-centered care and shared decision-making in Germany

The main focus of this paper is to describe the development and current state of policy, research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) in Germany.What is the current state in health policy? Since 2013, the Law on Patients' Rights has standardized all rights and responsibilities regarding medical care for patients in Germany. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information, and decisions based on a clinician-patient partnership. In addition, reports and action plans such as the German Ethics Council’s report on patient well-being, the National Health Literacy Action Plan, or the National Cancer Plan emphasize and foster PCC and SDM on a policy level. There are a number of public organizations in Germany that support PCC and SDM.How are patients and the public involved in health policy and research? Publishers and funding agencies increasingly demand patient and public involvement. Numerous initiatives and organizations are involved in publicizing ways to engage patients and the public. Also, an increasing number of public and research institutions have established patient advisory boards.How is PCC and SDM taught? Great progress has been made in introducing SDM into the curricula of medical schools and other health care providers’ (HCPs) schools (e.g., nursing, physical therapy).What is the German research agenda? The German government and other public institutions have constantly funded research programs in which PCC and SDM are important topics. This yielded several large-scale funding initiatives and helped to develop SDM training programs for HCPs in different fields of health care and information materials. Recently, two implementation studies on SDM have been conducted.What is the current uptake of PCC and SDM in routine care, and what implementation efforts are underway? Compared to the last country report from 2017, PCC and SDM efforts in policy, research and education have been intensified. However, many steps are still needed to reliably implement SDM in routine care in Germany. Specifically, the further development and uptake of decision tools and countrywide SDM trainings for HCPs require further efforts. Nevertheless, an increasing number of decision support tools – primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies – are to be implemented in routine care. Also, recent implementation efforts are promising. For example, reimbursement by health insurance companies of hospital-wide SDM implementation is being piloted. A necessary next step is to nationally coordinate the gathering and provision of the many PCC and SDM resources available.

Implementing shared decision-making in Australia

Person-centred care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) are part of national clinical standards for an increasing number of areas of health care delivery. In addition to existing standards for accrediting hospitals, day surgery facilities, public dental services and medical education in Australia, new standards governing primary health care and digital mental health services have been added. Implementation and measurement of PCC and SDM to comply with standards, and training of health professionals, remain challenges for the Australian health sector. Consumer involvement in health research, policy and clinical service governance continues to increase and the National Health and Medical Research Council has begun to encourage consumer and community involvement in health and medical research. This increased consumer engagement and moves towards more PCC provision is reflected in a focus on encouraging patients to ask questions during their clinical care and supports improvements in consumer health literacy. SDM support tools are now being culturally adapted whilst a need for more systemic approaches to their development and implementation persists. With increasing resources and tools for all aspects of PCC and SDM challenges to find sustainable solutions to ensure tools are kept up to date with the best available evidence remain.

Implementation and staff understanding of shared decision-making in the context of recovery-oriented care across US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient mental healthcare units: a mixed-methods evaluation

ObjectivesTo examine the understanding and practice of shared decision-making (SDM) within the context of recovery-oriented care across Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient mental healthcare units.DesignVHA inpatient mental health units were...

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement.

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

Abstract P5-15-05: Influence of shared decision making with decision aids on decisional conflict and regret in breast cancer surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background: Patients with breast cancer usually encounter difficulties in making treatment decisions. Shared decision making (SDM) is a way to minimize decisional conflicts of patients, and patients’ decision aids (PDAs) have been developed to support the implementation of SDM. However, the effect of PDAs in Asia is inconclusive. Therefore, we developed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of SDM assisted by PDAs on decisional conflict among patients with breast cancer in Taiwan. Methods: This is a two-group, outcome assessor-blind, randomized, controlled trial. A total of 151 patients diagnosed with breast cancer were assigned to the PDAs group or the classic group. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed to identify the variables influencing the treatment choice. The patients’ decision-making difficulties were evaluated using the 4-item SURE scale during the pre-operative hospitalization, and the decisional conflicts were assessed by the 5-item Decision Regret scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at one month postoperatively.Results: The choice of breast conservation therapy and mastectomy was not significantly different between the PDA and classic groups. Compared with the classic group, patients in PDA group had more depression after making decision (P = 0.029). No significant difference was noted in terms of the total scores in the SURE scale and Decision Regret scale between the groups.Conclusions: Our study revealed that PDA did not assist breast cancer patients in decision making. Clinicians should focus on SDM based on evidence-based medicine with care, and help patients taking their individual preference into consideration. Citation Format: Ka-Wai Tam, Shi-Qian Lin. Influence of shared decision making with decision aids on decisional conflict and regret in breast cancer surgery: A randomized controlled trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-15-05.

Discussions on Present Japanese Psychocultural-Social Tendencies as Obstacles to Clinical Shared Decision-Making in Japan.

In Japan, where a prominent gap exists in what is considered a patient’s best interest between the medical and patient sides, appropriate decision-making can be difficult to achieve. In Japanese clinical settings, decision-making is considered an act of choice-making from multiple potential options. With many ethical dilemmas still remaining, establishing an appropriate decision-making process is an urgent task in modern Japanese healthcare. This paper examines ethical issues related to shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical settings in modern Japan from the psychocultural-social perspective and discusses the ideal decision-making process in present Japan. Specifically, we discuss how five psychocultural-social tendencies – “surmise (Sontaku),” “self-restraint (Jishuku),” “air (atmosphere or mood, Kuuki),” “peer pressure (or tuning pressure, Docho-Atsuryoku),” and “community (Seken)”—which have often been referred to as characteristics of present-day Japanese people, may affect the ideal practice of SDM in Japanese clinical settings. We conclude that health care professionals must be aware of the possible adverse effects of the above Japanese psychocultural-social tendencies on the implementation of SDM and attempt to promote autonomous decision-making, thereby allowing patients to make treatment choices that sufficiently reflect their individual and personal views of life, experiences, goals, preferences, and values.

Shared decision-making for youth psychotherapy: A preliminary randomized clinical trial on facilitating personalized treatment.

Engaging youth and caregivers as active collaborators in the treatment planning process is a patient-centered approach with the potential to facilitate the personalization of established evidence-based treatments. This study is the first randomized clinical trial to evaluate shared decision-making (SDM) to plan youth psychotherapy. Forty youth (7-15 years; 33% ethnic minority) were randomly assigned to psychosocial treatment planned using SDM (n = 20) or planned primarily by the clinician (n = 20). In the SDM condition, clinicians guided youth and caregivers through a collaborative treatment planning process that relies on research findings to inform three primary decisions: (a) treatment target problem(s), (b) treatment participants, and (c) treatment techniques. Assessments occurred at baseline, following treatment planning, midtreatment, and post-treatment. Youth and caregivers in the SDM condition reported significantly greater involvement in the treatment planning process compared to their counterparts in the clinician-guided condition (U = 123.00, p = .037; U = 84.50, p = .014, respectively) and SDM caregivers reported significantly lower decisional conflict (U = 72.00, p = .004) and decisional regret (U = 73.50, p = .020). Supporting the feasibility of successful SDM implementation, there were no significant differences between conditions on treatment length, satisfaction with decisions, or engagement. There were no significant diagnostic or symptom differences between conditions. Planning psychosocial treatments in collaboration with youth and caregivers is a promising way to support youth and caregiver autonomy and plan evidence-based treatments that are responsive to patient preferences, culture, and values. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Communication tools and patient satisfaction: A scoping review.

ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to present an overview of the literature on communication tools in esthetic dentistry. A variety of communication tools have been proposed to include patients in the shared decision‐making (SDM) workflow. Only little is known about implementing communication tools in dentistry and their impact on patient communication and patient satisfaction. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and World of Science to identify if communication tools have an impact on patient satisfaction.Material and MethodsThe search included studies from January 1, 2000 to March 3, 2020 published in English, focusing on patient communication tools and patient satisfaction in esthetic dentistry.ResultsOut of 6678 records, 53 full‐texts were examined. Ten studies were included. Data of the included studies were extracted systematically and subsequently analyzed. All studies found that patient communication utilizing specific communication tools positively impacted either patient satisfaction, patient‐dentist relationship, information retention, treatment acceptance, quality of care or treatment outcome.ConclusionsAdditional communication tools besides conventional verbal communication are able to enhance patient satisfaction, improve quality of care and establish a better patient‐dentist relationship. It seems essential to further develop standardized communication tools for SDM in dental medicine, which will allow the comparison of research on this topic.Clinical significanceThis scoping review shows the importance of patient involvement in the decision‐making process for improved patient satisfaction with esthetic dental treatments. With an increased implementation of communication tools, patient satisfaction and SDM may further improve in the future.

Professionals’ views on shared decision-making in severe aortic stenosis

ObjectiveTo provide insight into professionals’ perceptions of and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) in the treatment of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).MethodsA semistructured interview study was performed in...

Enhancing knowledge and awareness of transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis and shared decision-making among cardiology team members in Colorado, USA via an online educational initiative

ABSTRACT Objectives Our project aimed to increase knowledge of noninvasive diagnostic modalities (including bone radiotracer scintigraphy), raise suspicion of transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (ATTR-CA), and improve cardiology team member’s awareness and knowledge of shared decision-making (SDM), as well as the quality of SDM communication between cardiology team members and patients. Methods An online educational module and survey was developed and cardiology team members in Colorado, USA, were invited to participate. This online educational module included various important topics related to ATTR-CA (e.g., the cause of ATTR-CA, endomyocardial biopsy, and noninvasive methods to diagnose ATTR-CA) and SDM (e.g., benefits of SDM, the role of SDM in the diagnosis of ATTR-CA, implementation of SDM in cardiology practice, and the 3-talk model). Results There were 34 survey respondents, over one-third of whom were cardiologists. Most respondents agreed on the importance of diagnosing ATTR-CA at an early stage, and about three-quarters of the survey takers agreed that bone scintigraphy can reliably diagnose ATTR-CA without the need for endomyocardial biopsy. Concern over increased time commitment was the leading barrier to the implementation of SDM in respondents’ clinical practice. The majority of respondents identified the correct answer regarding ATTR-CA and SDM after reading the online educational module. This improvement in scores after exposure to the online educational module was statistically significant. Conclusion Baseline knowledge and awareness of various issues related to ATTR-CA was relatively low among cardiology team members. Participants’ knowledge was enhanced through our effective online educational program. Prospective educational projects focused on various methods of detecting ATTR-CA as well as other amyloid conditions in diverse clinical settings will remain important.

What Is the Role of Shared Decision-Making With Parents of Children With Bronchiolitis?

What Is the Role of Shared Decision-Making With Parents of Children With Bronchiolitis?

Shared decision-making in urology and female pelvic floor medicine and reconstructive surgery.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a hallmark of patient-centred care that uses informed consent to help guide patients with making complex health-care decisions. In SDM, patients and providers work together to determine the best course of action based on both the current available evidence and the patient's values and preferences. SDM not only provides a framework for the legal and ethical obligations providers need to fulfil for informed consent, but also leads to improved knowledge of treatment options and satisfaction of decision-making for patients. Tools such as decision aids have been developed to support SDM for complex decisions. Several decision aids are available for use in the field of urology and female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, but these decision aids are also associated with barriers to SDM implementation including patient, provider and systematic challenges. However, solutions to such barriers to SDM include continued development of SDM tools to improve patient engagement, expand training of providers in SDM communication models and a process to encourage implementation of SDM.

Awareness of Doctors' Shared Decision-Making in Life-Sustaining Care Decisions.

At the end of life, communication is a key factor for good care. However, in clinical practice, it is difficult to adequately discuss end-of-life care. In order to understand and analyze how decision-making related to life-sustaining treatment (LST) is performed, the shared decision-making (SDM) behaviors of physicians were investigated. A questionnaire was designed after reviewing the literature on attitudes toward SDM or decision-making related to LST. A final item was added after consulting experts. The survey was completed by internal medicine residents and hematologists/medical oncologists who treat terminal cancer patients. In total, 202 respondents completed the questionnaire, and 88.6% said that the decision to continue or end LST is usually a result of SDM since they believed that sufficient explanation is provided to patients and caregivers, patients and caregivers make their own decisions according to their values, and there is sufficient time for patients and caregivers to make a decision. Expected satisfaction with the decision-making process was the highest for caregivers (57.4%), followed by physicians (49.5%) and patients (41.1%). In total, 38.1% of respondents said that SDM was adequately practiced when making decisions related to LST. The most common reason for inadequate SDM was time pressure (89.6%). Although most physicians answered that they practiced SDM when making decisions regarding LST, satisfactory SDM is rarely practiced in the clinical field. A model for the proper implementation of SDM is needed, and additional studies must be conducted to develop an SDM model in collaboration with other academic organizations.

Shared Decision-Making in Breast Reconstruction for Breast Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review.

For most breast cancer (BC) patients who have undergone a mastectomy, the decision whether to proceed with breast reconstruction (BR) is complicated and requires deliberation. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps to address those needs and promote informed value-based decisions. However, little is known about the SDM status for BR in BC patients. This scoping review describes: 1) basic characteristics of studies on BR SDM in BC patients; 2) factors influencing BR SDM in BC patients; 3) experience and perception of BR SDM in BC patients; and 4) outcome measures reported. This review was performed in accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley methodology. A total of 5 English and 4 Chinese databases were searched, as well as different sources from grey literature. The data extraction form was developed by referring to the objectives and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF). Data was analyzed using thematic analysis, framework analysis and descriptive statistics, with findings presented in the tables and diagrams. A total of 1481 records were retrieved and 42 of these included after screening. In 21 (21/42, 50%) of the studies, patient decision aids (PDAs) were utilized, and in 17 (17/42, 40.48%) of the studies, the factors influencing the implementation of SDM were explored. Of these 17 studies, the factors influencing the implementation of SDM were categorized into the following: the patient level (17/17, 100%), the healthcare level (2/17, 11.76%) and the organizational and system level (7/17, 41.18%). A total of 8 (19.05%) of the 42 studies focused on patients’ experiences and perceptions of SDM, and all studies used qualitative research methods. Of these 8 studies, a total of 7 (7/8, 87.50%) focused on patients’ experiences of SDM participation, and 4 (4/8, 50.00%) focused on patients’ perceptions of SDM. A total of 24 studies (24/42, 57.14%) involved quantitative outcome measures, where 49 items were divided into three classifications according to the outcomes of ODSF: the quality of the decision (17/24, 70.83%), the quality of the decision-making process (20/24, 83.33%), and impact (13/24, 54.17%). Although researchers have paid less attention to other research points in the field of SDM, compared to the design and application of SDM interventional tools, the research team still presents some equally noteworthy points through scoping review. For instance, the various factors influencing BC patients’ participation in SDM for BR (especially at the healthcare provider level and at the organizational system level), patients’ experiences and perceptions. Systematic reviews (SRs) should be conducted to quantify the impact of these different factors on BR SDM. Implementation of scientific theories and methods can inform the exploration and integration of these factors.

Shared decision-making interventions: An overview and a meta-analysis of their impact on vaccine uptake.

The interest in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of patient decision aids have increased significantly. Research indicates that this approach has benefits, and yet, implementation remains a challenge. To illustrate this development, we focus on vaccine hesitancy which has become a serious public health challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Various strategies have been used in healthcare, with limited success, to help patients overcome vaccine hesitancy. It is unclear whether SDM interventions can increase vaccination rates. Our aim was two-fold: to provide an overview of SDM and the use of patient decision aids and to determine the effect of SDM interventions on vaccine uptake. To provide an overview, we drew on our knowledge of the field and summarized the most recent systematic reviews. We examined the impact on vaccine hesitancy by searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions, conducted a meta-analysis and calculated a pooled odds ratio. Additional outcomes were reported in a narrative synthesis. SDM is viewed as the pinnacle of patient-centred care, supported by an ethical imperative and by empirical evidence of benefits. We found 10 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. SDM interventions significantly increased vaccine uptake compared to control groups (odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [1.17-1.80]; p < 0.01). Some RCTs also reported significantly decreased decisional conflict and increased decision confidence. Future healthcare delivery systems will need to consider how to support the implementation of SDM. Interventions designed to facilitate this approach can represent a helpful, ethically defensible, strategy to increase vaccination rates.

Implementing Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening across a Veterans Health Administration Hospital Network: A Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Study Protocol.

Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended by multiple organizations, reflecting a larger movement toward patient-centered care. Yet SDM for LCS does not routinely occur owing to barriers at multiple levels. Moreover, how best to implement SDM into routine clinical practice remains unknown. There is a need for a novel approach to overcome multilevel barriers and ensure high-quality SDM for LCS is integrated into routine practice. We present the protocol for our U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-funded study. Our protocol is designed to implement and evaluate a multilevel, tailored approach to SDM for LCS in routine clinical practice within the VA New England Health Care Network, comprising eight medical centers. In this prospective, pragmatic hybrid implementation-effectiveness study, we will first conduct a formative evaluation of barriers to SDM for LCS at each level of the socioecological model, which will inform our tailored implementation plan. We will then sequentially introduce components of our tailored, multilevel approach to implementing SDM for LCS across VA New England. Finally, using mixed methods, we will evaluate the implementation and its impact on effectiveness (primary outcome, defined as patient-centeredness of SDM), as well as implementation outcomes informed by the RE-AIM implementation science framework (i.e., reach to patients, adoption by providers, implementation fidelity). Tailored implementation will address identified challenges to achieving policy recommendations for SDM for LCS in VA New England, inform nationwide implementation of SDM for LCS, and address stakeholder interests in promoting more patient-centered interactions across the VA.

The social construction of the patient-physician relationship in the clinical encounter: Media frames on shared decision making in Germany

The literature on healthcare management has noted that shared decision-making (SDM) - a practice of organizing joint decisions between healthcare professionals and patients - should improve healthcare outcomes through patient engagement and autonomy, fostering patient-centeredness. While SDM projects are implemented across Europe and the US, the diffusion of the practice remains partial, and its' conceptualization scattered. Healthcare management literature explores SDM on the underlying assumption that its limited diffusion results from an information problem, implying objective criteria and rational behavior. The purpose of this research is to study the social construction of SDM within the clinical setting and the underlying rationales using the case of one of the largest healthcare markets worldwide – Germany. To capture the complexity of SDM, a frame analysis is conducted on its medial representations. News media is both influential in shaping public opinion, as well as in generating public discourse. This analysis enables one to elaborate different facets of the construct of SDM, to capture inherent patterns of facilitating and obstructing aspects and to explore consequences for the diffusion of SDM. Three facilitating and three obstructive frames on the implementation of SDM were identified. The polarities of these frames range from the questioning of one's decision-making authority to the perception of individual competence and decision-making agency. Moreover, this study reflects on how physicians' and patients' role for SDM is conceived.

Informed Consent for Organ Transplantation in Older Adults: Are Patient Decision Aids the Solution for Successful Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Transplant Clinical Practice?

"Informed consent (IC) in older adults (≥ 70 years of age) is often complex. This holds even truer in the setting of organ transplantation (OTx), requiring patients to be informed of the risks and benefits associated with multiple options: whether or not to pursue a transplant, to opt for a living – where appropriate – or deceased donor, to consider a variety of choices concerning the potential for poorer organ quality or increased risk of disease transmission and others. IC overlaps with shared decision-making (SDM) in the presence of high-risk procedures, with low levels of certainty, and when two or more treatment alternatives exist. Patient decision aids (PDAs) (i.e. paper-based/electronic evidence-based tools) have been developed to complement and enhance SDM in clinical practice. Studies have proven PDAs to be an effective means to improve transplant knowledge, to foster patient participation, and to diminish decisional conflict across different settings in OTx. However, research is lacking on the effectiveness and appropriateness of these tools in older adults, which are increasingly entitled to receive OTx. The objective of our work is 1) to present the challenges posed by the use of PDAs in this group of patients and 2) to identify gaps so as to inform the agenda for research on this emergent issue. Our findings suggest that future studies should aim to the development, implementation and evaluation of PDAs for the oldest, more vulnerable segments of this specific patient population. "

Healthcare professionals' views on factors influencing shared decision-making in primary health care centres in Saudi Arabia: A qualitative study.

To describe the perspectives of healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of Shared decision-making (SDM) in primary healthcare centres (PHCCs) in Saudi Arabia. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive and snowball sample of healthcare professionals in PHCCs. Interviews have been recorded, transcribed, translated and thematically analysed. Themes were mapped to the COM-B model. Sixteen healthcare professionals were interviewed. The data analysis identified six themes and 14 sub-themes. The six themes are patient related factors, health professional related factors, environmental context and resources, patient-physician communication, patient-physician preferences toward SDM and physicians' perceived value and benefits of SDM. Physicians are unlikely to practice SDM in the context of time pressures, shortage of physicians, lack of treatment options, and decision-making aids. The findings also underscored the importance of building a trustworthy physician-patient relationship through the use of effective conversation techniques. There are multiple barriers to SDM in primary care. Unless these barriers are addressed, it is unlikely that physicians will effectively or fully engage in SDM with patients.

Shared decision making in social services – some remaining questions

ABSTRACT Recent years have seen increased emphasis on person-centring and user involvement in healthcare delivery and social services. In Sweden, the rights of users to participate in and influence care planning and services are stipulated in the Social Services Act, the Health Care Act and the Patient Law. Shared decision making (SDM) is presented as a supportive collaboration between users and staff, drawing on users’ preferences and values as well as the best available evidence to discuss options and reach a consensus on care decisions. However, studies on the implementation of SDM in somatic care illustrate challenges, such as staff trying to persuade users to agree to a particular option rather than offering opportunities to discuss various alternatives. The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare recommend that SDM should be offered in social services support in relation to certain groups. However, the imperative that ‘SDM should be offered in the social services’ raises questions; in addition to the question of how SDM should be understood, we need to account for why SDM should be offered, who should offer SDM, when it should be offered, to whom and regarding which decisions. The questions concern justification as well as clarifications. The aim of this article is threefold: to discuss SDM and its components; to deliberate upon what SDM may imply to the social services and finally, to suggest some preconditions that should be present for an implementation of SDM.