↓ Skip to main content

Can shared decision-making reduce medical malpractice litigation? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
32 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can shared decision-making reduce medical malpractice litigation? A systematic review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0823-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie-Anne Durand, Benjamin Moulton, Elizabeth Cockle, Mala Mann, Glyn Elwyn

Abstract

To explore the likely influence and impact of shared decision-making on medical malpractice litigation and patients' intentions to initiate litigation. We included all observational, interventional and qualitative studies published in all languages, which assessed the effect or likely influence of shared decision-making or shared decision-making interventions on medical malpractice litigation or on patients' intentions to litigate. The following databases were searched from inception until January 2014: CINAHL, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, HMIC, Lexis library, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Open SIGLE, PsycINFO and Web of Knowledge. We also hand searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. Downs & Black quality assessment checklist, the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme qualitative tool, and the Critical Appraisal Guidelines for single case study research were used to assess the quality of included studies. 6562 records were screened and 19 articles were retrieved for full-text review. Five studies wee included in the review. Due to the number and heterogeneity of included studies, we conducted a narrative synthesis adapted from the ESRC guidance for narrative synthesis. Four themes emerged. The analysis confirms the absence of empirical data necessary to determine whether or not shared decision-making promoted in the clinical encounter can reduce litigation. Three out of five included studies provide retrospective and simulated data suggesting that ignoring or failing to diagnose patient preferences, particularly when no effort has been made to inform and support understanding of possible harms and benefits, puts clinicians at a higher risk of litigation. Simulated scenarios suggest that documenting the use of decision support interventions in patients' notes could offer some level of medico-legal protection. Our analysis also indicated that a sizeable proportion of clinicians prefer ordering more tests and procedures, irrespective of patient informed preferences, as protection against litigation. Given the lack of empirical data, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not shared decision-making and the use of decision support interventions can reduce medical malpractice litigation. Further investigation is required. This review was registered on PROSPERO. Registration number: CRD42012002367 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Psychology 4 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,451,593
of 20,680,038 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#495
of 6,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,095
of 242,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#12
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,680,038 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,918 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.