Technology-supported shared decision-making in chronic conditions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Roswita M.E. Vaseur*, Eline te Braake, Tessa Beinema, Wendy Oude Nijeweme-d'Hollosy, Monique Tabak

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

21 Downloads (Pure)


Objectives: To describe the role of patients with a chronic disease, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and technology in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), and to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM and CDSSs interventions. Methods: Randomized controlled studies published between 2011 and 2021 were identified and screened independently by two reviewers, followed by data extraction and analysis. SDM elements and interactive styles were identified to shape the roles of patients, HCPs and technology. Results: Forty-three articles were identified and reported on 21 SDM-studies, 15 CDSS-studies, 2 studies containing both an SDM-tool and a CDSS, and 5 studies with other decision support components. SDM elements were mostly identified in SDM-tools and interactions styles were least common in the other decision support components. Conclusions: Patients within the included RCTs mainly received information from SDM-tools and occasionally CDSSs when it concerns treatment strategies. HCPs provide and clarify information using SDM-tools and CDSSs. Technology provides interactions, which can support more active SDM. SDM-tools mostly showed evidence for positive effects on SDM outcomes, while CDSSs mostly demonstrated positive effects on clinical outcomes. Practice implications: Technology-supported SDM has potential to optimize SDM when patients, HCPs and technology collaborate well together.

Original languageEnglish
Article number108267
JournalPatient education and counseling
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2024


  • UT-Hybrid-D


Dive into the research topics of 'Technology-supported shared decision-making in chronic conditions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this