Informed Shared Decision-Making: A Model for Physical Therapy Education and Practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The goals of this article are (1) to define informed shared decision-making (ISDM); (2) to present and discuss several conceptual frameworks for ISDM; (3) to list a set of ISDM competencies developed initially for physicians; and (4) to present strategies for applying these ISDM competencies to the education and practice of physical therapy. Summary of Key Points: ISDM provides a framework for communicating with clients or patients in which elements of client-centred care, evidence-based practice, and informed choice are integrated. Research has shown that patients who are more informed and more involved in their own decision-making are more likely to participate in treatment programs and experience better health outcomes. Conclusions: ISDM is a communication framework that can be used by physical therapists to incorporate client-centred care, informed choice, and evidence-based practice. It is our hope that this article will inspire our physical therapist colleagues to embrace the concepts underlying ISDM and to evaluate its merits within both educational and clinical contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".