Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug 9;10(8):e36199.
doi: 10.2196/36199.

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Shared Decision Making: Scoping Review

Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi  1   2   3 , Michelle Cwintal  4 , Yuhui Huang  5 , Pooria Ghadiri  1 , Roland Grad  1 , Dan Poenaru  6 , Genevieve Gore  7 , Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun  8   9 , France Légaré  8   9   10 , Pierre Pluye  1
Affiliations

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Shared Decision Making: Scoping Review

Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi et al. JMIR Med Inform. .

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results in various fields of medicine. It has the potential to facilitate shared decision making (SDM). However, there is no comprehensive mapping of how AI may be used for SDM.

Objective: We aimed to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI to facilitate SDM.

Methods: We performed a scoping review informed by the methodological framework proposed by Levac et al, modifications to the original Arksey and O'Malley framework of a scoping review, and the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework. We reported our results based on the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guideline. At the identification stage, an information specialist performed a comprehensive search of 6 electronic databases from their inception to May 2021. The inclusion criteria were: all populations; all AI interventions that were used to facilitate SDM, and if the AI intervention was not used for the decision-making point in SDM, it was excluded; any outcome related to patients, health care providers, or health care systems; studies in any health care setting, only studies published in the English language, and all study types. Overall, 2 reviewers independently performed the study selection process and extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. A descriptive analysis was performed.

Results: The search process yielded 1445 records. After removing duplicates, 894 documents were screened, and 6 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Overall, 2 of them were conducted in North America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Australia, and 1 in Asia. Most articles were published after 2017. Overall, 3 articles focused on primary care, and 3 articles focused on secondary care. All studies used machine learning methods. Moreover, 3 articles included health care providers in the validation stage of the AI intervention, and 1 article included both health care providers and patients in clinical validation, but none of the articles included health care providers or patients in the design and development of the AI intervention. All used AI to support SDM by providing clinical recommendations or predictions.

Conclusions: Evidence of the use of AI in SDM is in its infancy. We found AI supporting SDM in similar ways across the included articles. We observed a lack of emphasis on patients' values and preferences, as well as poor reporting of AI interventions, resulting in a lack of clarity about different aspects. Little effort was made to address the topics of explainability of AI interventions and to include end-users in the design and development of the interventions. Further efforts are required to strengthen and standardize the use of AI in different steps of SDM and to evaluate its impact on various decisions, populations, and settings.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; machine learning; patient-centered care; scoping review; shared decision making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram. Adapted from Page et al [40]. AI: artificial intelligence; SDM: shared decision making.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Years of publication and countries where studies are outlined in the included papers.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango) Soc Sci Med. 1997 Mar;44(5):681–92. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making — the Pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar;366(9):780–1. doi: 10.1056/nejmp1109283. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Couët N, Desroches S, Robitaille H, Vaillancourt H, Leblanc A, Turcotte S, Elwyn G, Légaré F. Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expect. 2015 Aug 04;18(4):542–61. doi: 10.1111/hex.12054. doi: 10.1111/hex.12054. - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Edwards M, Davies M, Edwards A. What are the external influences on information exchange and shared decision-making in healthcare consultations: a meta-synthesis of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Apr;75(1):37–52. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.09.025.S0738-3991(08)00526-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Holmes-Rovner M, Valade D, Orlowski C, Draus C, Nabozny-Valerio B, Keiser S. Implementing shared decision-making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities. Health Expect. 2000 Sep;3(3):182–91. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2000.00093.x. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/11281928 hex093 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types