American Journal of Clinical Dermatology

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 13–29 | Cite as

Shared Decision Making in Psoriasis: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies

  • Marie Hamilton LarsenEmail author
  • Kåre Birger Hagen
  • Anne Lene Krogstad
  • Astrid Klopstad Wahl
Systematic Review



Patients with psoriasis face numerous treatment and self-management decisions. Shared decision making is a novel approach where patients’ preferences and values are considered in cooperation with healthcare professionals before making treatment decisions.


The objective of this systematic review was to explore what is illuminated in psoriasis research regarding shared decision making, and to estimate the effects of shared decision-making interventions in this context.


Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies were eligible for inclusion. We searched six electronic databases up to January 2018. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria. The SPIDER framework was used to identify eligibility criteria for study inclusion. Narrative and thematic syntheses were utilized to identify prominent themes emerging from the data.


A total of 23 studies were included in the review. Of these, we included 18 studies (19 papers) to describe what was illuminated with regard to shared decision making in psoriasis research. Four major themes emerged: interpersonal communication; exchange of competence and knowledge; different world view; and involvement and preference, organized under two analytical themes; “Co-creation of decisions” and “Organization of treatment and treatment needs”. For shared decision-making effects, we included four controlled studies. These varied in scope and interventional length and showed limited use of shared decision making-specific outcome measures, reflecting the early stage of the literature. Because of study heterogeneity, a meta-synthesis was not justified.


There appears to be a need to strengthen the relationship between medical doctors and patients with psoriasis. The evident lack of knowledge about each other’s competence and the lack of self-efficacy for both patients and providers challenges the basic principles of shared decision making. The effects of shared decision making in psoriasis are inconclusive, and more research appears necessary to determine the possible benefits of shared decision-making interventions.


Compliance with Ethical Standards


No sources of funding were received for the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

Marie Hamilton Larsen, Kåre Birger Hagen, Anne Lene Krogstad, and Astrid KlopstadWahl have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this article.

Supplementary material

40257_2018_390_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (279 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 279 kb)
40257_2018_390_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (375 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 375 kb)
40257_2018_390_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (191 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 191 kb)


  1. 1.
    Hong J, Koo B, Koo J. The psychosocial and occupational impact of chronic skin disease. Dermatol Ther. 2008;21(1):54–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belinchón I, Rivera R, Blanch C, Comellas M, Lizán L. Adherence, satisfaction and preferences for treatment in patients with psoriasis in the European Union: a systematic review of the literature. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:2357–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Machado-Pinto J, Diniz Mdos S, Bavoso NC. Psoriasis: new comorbidities. An Bras Dermatol. 2016;91(1):8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rasmussen GS, Kragballe K, Maindal HT, Lomborg K. Experience of being young with psoriasis: self-management support needs. Qual Health Res. 2017;28(1):73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Safdari R, Firoz A, Masoorian H. Identifying training and informational components to develop a psoriasis self- management application. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017;31:67. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gionfriddo MR, Leppin AL, Brito JP, LeBlanc A, Boehmer KR, Morris MA, et al. A systematic review of shared decision making interventions in chronic conditions: a review protocol. Syst Rev. 2014;3:38. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gionfriddo MR, Leppin AL, Brito JP, LeBlanc A, Shah ND, Montori VM. Shared decision-making and comparative effectiveness research for patients with chronic conditions: an urgent synergy for better health. J Comp Eff Res. 2013;2(6):595–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friesen-Storms JHHM, Bours GJJW, van der Weijden T, Beurskens AJHM. Shared decision making in chronic care in the context of evidence based practice in nursing. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(1):393–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zoffmann V, Harder I, Kirkevold M. A person-centered communication and reflection model: sharing decision-making in chronic care. Qual Health Res. 2008;18(5):670–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montori VM, Gafni A, Charles C. A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes. Health Expect. 2006;9(1):25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adams JR, Drake RE. Shared decision-making and evidence-based practice. Commun Ment Health J. 2006;42(1):87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elwyn G, Frosch DL, Kobrin S. Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stacey D, Legare F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD001431.
  14. 14.
    Coulter AC, Collins A. Making shared decision making a reality: no decision about me, without me. London: The King’s Fund; 2011. Accessed 6 Nov 2017.
  15. 15.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1435–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay AC, Salsberg J, Jagosh J, et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(1):47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soundy A, Roskell C, Elder T, Collett J, Dawes H. The psychological processes of adaptation and hope in patients with multiple sclerosis: a thematic synthesis. OJTR. 2016;4:22–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rose A, Rosewilliam S, Soundy A. Shared decision making within goal setting in rehabilitation settings: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(1):65–75. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl. 1):6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2011. Accessed 19 Sept 2018.
  23. 23.
    Harden A, Thomas J. Methodological issues in combining diverse study types in systematic reviews. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McDougall A, Edhlund B. Nvivo 11 essentials. 1st ed. 2016. Accessed 5 Sep 2017.
  25. 25.
    Sandelowski M, Barroso J, Voils CI. Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(1):99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nelson PA, Barker Z, Griffiths CE, Cordingley L, Chew-Graham CA. ‘On the surface’: a qualitative study of GPs’ and patients’ perspectives on psoriasis. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nelson PA, Chew-Graham CA, Griffiths CE, Cordingley L. Recognition of need in health care consultations: a qualitative study of people with psoriasis. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168(2):354–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tan J, Stacey D, Fung K, Barankin B, Bissonnette R, Gulliver W, et al. Treatment decision needs of psoriasis patients: cross-sectional survey. J Cutan Med Surg. 2010;14(5):233–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Renzi C, Di Pietro C, Tabolli S. Participation, satisfaction and knowledge level of patients with cutaneous psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2011;36(8):885–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Radtke MA, Spehr C, Reich K, Rustenbach SJ, Feuerhahn J, Augustin M. Treatment satisfaction in psoriasis: development and use of the PsoSat Patient Questionnaire in a cross-sectional study. Dermatology. 2016;232(3):334–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Umar N, Schollgen I, Terris DD. It is not always about gains: utilities and disutilities associated with treatment features in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;6:187–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tan J, Stacey D, Barankin B, Bissonnette R, Gulliver W, Lui H, et al. Support needed to involve psoriasis patients in treatment decisions: survey of dermatologists. J Cutan Med Surg. 2011;15(4):192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Halioua B, Maury Le Breton A, de Fontaubert A, Roussel ME, Stalder JF. Treatment refusal among patients with psoriasis. J Dermatol Treat. 2015;26(5):396–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tan J, Wolfe B. Improved decisional conflict and preparedness for decision making using a patient decision aid for treatment selection in psoriasis: a pilot study. J Cut Med Surg. 2014;18(2):114–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gist DL, Bhushan R, Hamarstrom E, Sluka P, Presta CM, Thompson JS, et al. Impact of a performance improvement CME activity on the care and treatment of patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72(3):516–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Blome C, Costanzo A, Dauden E, Ferrandiz C, Girolomoni G, Gniadecki R, et al. Patient-relevant needs and treatment goals in nail psoriasis. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(5):1179–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gilet H, Roborel de Climens A, Arnould B, Bachelez H, Bagot M, Beaulieu P, et al. Development and psychometric validation of the REFlective evaLuation of psoriasis Efficacy of Treatment and Severity (REFLETS) questionnaire: a common measure of plaque-type psoriasis severity and treatment efficacy for patients and clinicians. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(3):498–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Linder D, Dalłolio E, Gisondi P, Berardesca E, Gennaro ED, Pennella AR, et al. Perception of disease and doctor-patient relationship experienced by patients with psoriasis: a questionnaire-based study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2009;10(5):325–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nelson PA, Kane K, Chisholm A, Pearce CJ, Keyworth C, Rutter MK, et al. ‘I should have taken that further’: missed opportunities during cardiovascular risk assessment in patients with psoriasis in UK primary care settings: a mixed-methods study. Health Expect. 2016;19(5):1121–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Umar N, Schaarschmidt M, Schmieder A, Peitsch WK, Schollgen I, Terris DD. Matching physicians’ treatment recommendations to patients’ treatment preferences is associated with improvement in treatment satisfaction. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2013;27(6):763–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Magin PJ, Adams J, Heading GS, Pond CD. Patients with skin disease and their relationships with their doctors: a qualitative study of patients with acne, psoriasis and eczema. Med J Aust. 2009;190(2):62–4.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Uhlenhake EE, Kurkowski D, Feldman SR. Conversations on psoriasis what patients want and what physicians can provide: a qualitative look at patient and physician expectations. J Dermatol Treat. 2010;21(1):6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Reich K, Mrowietz U, Karakasili E, Zschocke I. Development of an adherence-enhancing intervention in topical treatment termed the topical treatment optimization program (TTOP). Arch Dermatol Res. 2014;306(7):667–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Khoury LR, Skov L, Møller T. Facing the dilemma of patient-centred psoriasis care: a qualitative study identifying patient needs in dermatological outpatient clinics. Br J Dermatol. 2017;177(2):436–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Reich K, Zschocke I, Bachelez H, de Jong EMGJ, Gisondi P, Puig L, et al. A Topical Treatment Optimization Programme (TTOP) improves clinical outcome for calcipotriol/betamethasone gel in psoriasis: results of a 64-week multinational randomized phase IV study in 1790 patients (PSO-TOP). Br J Dermatol. 2017;177(1):197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Balato N, Megna M, Di Costanzo L, Balato A, Ayala F. Educational and motivational support service: a pilot study for mobile-phone-based interventions in patients with psoriasis. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168(1):201–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lora V, Gisondi P, Calza A, Zanoni M, Girolomoni G. Efficacy of a single educative intervention in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. Dermatology. 2009;219(4):316–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Renzi C, Di Pietro C, Gisondi P, Chinni LM, Fazio M, Ianni A, et al. Insufficient knowledge among psoriasis patients can represent a barrier to participation in decision-making. Acta Derm Venereol. 2006;86(6):528–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2012;70(4):351–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making: pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Eliacin J, Salyers MP, Kukla M, Matthias MS. Factors influencing patients’ preferences and perceived involvement in shared decision-making in mental health care. J Ment Health. 2015;24(1):24–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(3):291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Peek ME, Wilson SC, Gorawara-Bhat R, Odoms-Young A, Quinn MT, Chin MH. Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making among African–Americans with diabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(10):1135–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brundage MD, Feldman-Stewart D, Dixon P, Gregg R, Youssef Y, Davies D, et al. A treatment trade-off based decision aid for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Health Expect. 2000;3(1):55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Walsh T, Barr PJ, Thompson R, Ozanne E, O’Neill C, Elwyn G. Undetermined impact of patient decision support interventions on healthcare costs and savings: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21–43.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(1):114–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Légaré F, Ratté S, Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Gravel K, Graham ID, et al. Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(5):CD006732.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Légaré F, Politi MC, Drolet R, Desroches S, Stacey D, Bekker H. Training health professionals in shared decision-making: an international environmental scan. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(2):159–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1):45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Society, Medical FacultyUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.The Norwegian Institute of Public HealthOsloNorway
  3. 3.The Sahlgrenska AcademyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations