To the Editor We applaud Kopecky et al1 for articulating that a shared decision-making process for determining whether to obtain a preference-sensitive elective surgery requires more than asking a patient to watch a video, read a document, or fill in numbers on a risk calculator. Clearly, a surgeon should agree that the surgery is a reasonable treatment option, be able to modify treatment recommendations based on a patient’s risk profile, and weigh in on what the surgeon believes to be the best treatment pathway. Along the way, patients should be informed of the short-term and long-term risks and benefits of different treatment options, including adverse effect profiles that might influence decision making for reasonable patients with distinct sets of values.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Weeks WB, Weinstein JN. Cost and Outcomes Information Should Be Part of Shared Decision Making. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(5):465–466. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.5581
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: