A Edwards1, G Elwyn, C Smith, S Williams, H Thornton. 1. Department of General Practice, University of Wales College of Medicine, Llanedeyrn Health Centre, Llanedeyrn, Cardiff CF3 7PN, UK. Edwardsag@cf.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a recognized need to assess the effects of shared decision-making and other communication interventions. However, the outcomes usually assessed for evidence of 'effectiveness' are determined by researchers and have not been based on consumers' views. AIM: This study aimed to identify the important outcomes of consultations for consumers, and to compare with those reported in the current literature. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven participants attending six focus group interviews. Most interviews took place in and all were orientated towards the UK primary care setting. METHODS: Focus group study. RESULTS: Many affective outcomes were identified, consistent with the current literature trends. However, many cognitive and behavioural outcomes that are assessed in the current literature were not noted by participants as important. Furthermore, a broader range of outcomes than is evident in the current literature was viewed as important to these participants. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to revisit the outcomes which are assessed in decision-making and communication research. The outcomes of greatest importance to consumers must be identified and confirmed by new research which is based directly on the views of consumers themselves.
BACKGROUND: There is a recognized need to assess the effects of shared decision-making and other communication interventions. However, the outcomes usually assessed for evidence of 'effectiveness' are determined by researchers and have not been based on consumers' views. AIM: This study aimed to identify the important outcomes of consultations for consumers, and to compare with those reported in the current literature. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven participants attending six focus group interviews. Most interviews took place in and all were orientated towards the UK primary care setting. METHODS: Focus group study. RESULTS: Many affective outcomes were identified, consistent with the current literature trends. However, many cognitive and behavioural outcomes that are assessed in the current literature were not noted by participants as important. Furthermore, a broader range of outcomes than is evident in the current literature was viewed as important to these participants. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to revisit the outcomes which are assessed in decision-making and communication research. The outcomes of greatest importance to consumers must be identified and confirmed by new research which is based directly on the views of consumers themselves.
Authors: D Feldman-Stewart; M D Brundage; C Hayter; P Groome; J C Nickel; H Downes; W J Mackillop Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2000 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: M Holmes-Rovner; J Kroll; N Schmitt; D R Rovner; M L Breer; M L Rothert; G Padonu; G Talarczyk Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1996 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: F Palacio Lapuente; R Marquet Palomar; A Oliver Esteve; P Castro Guardiola; M Bel Reverter; J L Piñol Moreso Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2003 Impact factor: 1.137