One interview included a particularly

forceful expression of a stand in favor of the patient’s equality: “The doctor should not be mystical. He should consider the patient as an equal partner—as intelligent as himself—and give the patient a chance to help the doctor by trying to figure out problems together. The patient should have the freedom and the chance to say what he thinks about a certain therapeutic approach.” Interestingly, among several types of innovating behavior examined, acceptance of a more equal doctor–patient relationship was the only behavior associated with greater general satisfaction with PI3K Inhibitor Library in vitro modern developments in medical practice by the participating doctors. By 1982, a more equal doctor–patient relationship had moved to being a primary research target (i.e. dependent variable of interest). A US Presidential Commission on medical decision-making ethics recommended shared decision making as the “appropriate ideal for patient–professional relationships that

a sound doctrine of informed consent should support” [19]. The Commission’s survey revealed that 56% of physicians and 64% of the public felt that increasing the involvement of patients would improve the quality of care, with physicians citing compliance and cooperativeness selleck chemicals llc as the main reasons. Embedded in

a shift toward patient involvement and advocacy, shared decision making is increasingly prevalent in health literature [20]. In light of the current trend in patient-centered care and the potential systemic advantages exposed by current shared decision making research, more and more countries are deciding to orient their policy decisions around the patient [4]. The history, relevance and general tendency of patient-centered care and shared decision making clearly demonstrate that shared decision making is not a passing fad, and will play an increasingly important role in the way we think about our health and our relationship with care. The myth that the patient is left alone to make the treatment decision is not Rebamipide supported by the extensive systematic reviews on models of shared decision making and contradicts its core elements [9] and [10]. Shared decision making is an interpersonal, interdependent process in which the health care provider and the patient relate to and influence each other as they collaborate in making decisions about the patient’s health care [21]. The idea of balance and respect between the two partners is fundamental to shared decision making and one of its main purposes is to take advantage of both parties’ expertise [22] and [23]. The degree to which the decision is shared (i.e.