Shared decision making

2 papers4 findings

C, W, M, H: cells, worms or flies, mice, humans. Dark: independent labs found the same change there. Light: one lab or one study. Outline: nothing yet.

Labs are independent when their papers share no last author and no institution.

Against: findings that point the other way from most findings on the same outcome.

No results posted: trials that ended more than a year ago with no results on ClinicalTrials.gov and no paper in ARN’s record.

Company ties: findings with an author at a company, or from a paper whose competing-interests statement declares ties to one.

2 independent labs in 1 country

Funders: Health Services Research and Development and 1 more

Human trial1

Outcomes

Lung cancer screening completion rate

upin humans1RR 1.29

1 study

Shared decision making increases lung cancer screening completion rate in humans (46% vs 36%, RR = 1.29).
Human trialin eligible patientsn = 55
Increasing lung cancer screening referral/order and completion rates in primary care through patient outreach and shared decision making
Journal of medical screening20 Aug 2026

Lung cancer screening referral/order rate

upin humans1RR 2.28

1 study

Shared decision making increases lung cancer screening referral/order rate in humans (96% vs 42%, RR = 2.28).
Human trialin eligible patientsn = 55
Increasing lung cancer screening referral/order and completion rates in primary care through patient outreach and shared decision making
Journal of medical screening20 Aug 2026

Decisional conflict

no changein humans1

1 study

Shared decision making has no effect on decisional conflict in humans.
Review
Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review
CHEST pulmonary14 Oct 2025

Lung cancer screening participation

upin humans1

1 study

Shared decision making increases lung cancer screening participation in humans.
Reviewincluding by care coordinators or patient navigators
Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review
CHEST pulmonary14 Oct 2025