Author
Listed:
- Vanessa I. Orellana-Villazon
(James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA)
- Jennifer E. deSante-Bertkau
(Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA)
- Barbara K. Giambra
(James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
University of Cincinnati, College of Nursing, Cincinnati, OH, USA)
- Ellen A. Lipstein
(James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA)
Abstract
Background Pediatric shared decision making (SDM) involves clinicians working with children and families to make health care decisions that reflect their values and preferences. Existing pediatric SDM programs are highly variable and rely on frameworks designed for adults. While efforts have been made to identify SDM competencies in adult care, this has not happened in pediatrics. Objective To establish consensus-based core competencies enabling clinicians to effectively implement SDM with pediatric patients and their families. Methods We conducted a modified Delphi study with pediatric clinicians, SDM researchers, ethicists, and medical educators. In round 1, panelists listed essential SDM competencies. In rounds 2 and 3, panelists rated the importance of each competency using a 4-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥80% of panelists rating an item as “important†or “very important,†a median score ≥3.5, and interquartile range ≤1. Results Forty professionals were invited; 22 panelists participated in round 1, suggesting 176 competencies, which were merged with 170 from prior literature. After refinement, 42 competencies were rated in round 2 ( n = 21 panelists). During this round, 17 competencies reached consensus, and 8 required modifications. In round 3 ( n = 20 panelists), an additional 15 competencies reached consensus. The final framework includes 32 competencies organized into 6 domains: Fundamentals of SDM, Unique Aspects of Pediatric SDM, Communication and Information-Sharing, Eliciting and Integrating Preferences and Values, Collaboration and Consensus Building, and Providing Evidence-Based Recommendations. Conclusions This study defines the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes pediatric health care professionals need to engage children and families in SDM effectively. The framework supports competency-based education and guides curriculum development and assessment to strengthen SDM practice in pediatrics. Highlights This study is the first to develop pediatric-specific SDM competencies using a Delphi approach. The final list includes 32 competencies across knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values. These competencies provide a foundation for designing SDM training within a competency-based education approach in pediatrics.
Suggested Citation
Vanessa I. Orellana-Villazon & Jennifer E. deSante-Bertkau & Barbara K. Giambra & Ellen A. Lipstein, 2026.
"Competencies for Pediatric Shared Decision Making: A Delphi Consensus Study,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 46(6), pages 696-708, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:6:p:696-708
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X261429487
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:6:p:696-708. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.