Literature DB >> 11533436

Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools.

A Robinson1, R Thomson.   

Abstract

While there is an increasing emphasis on patient empowerment and shared decision making, evidence suggests that many patients do not wish to be involved in decisions about their own care. Previous research has found patient preferences for involvement in decision making to vary with age, socioeconomic status, illness experience, and the gravity of the decision. Furthermore, there is evidence that certain patients may experience disutility from being involved in decision making about the treatment of their health problems. We discuss the implications of these findings for the use of decision support tools and the difficulties of targeting their use towards those patients most likely to benefit. We argue that patients may be ill informed about what participation in decision making actually entails and unaware of the benefits they stand to gain by articulating their preferences to their clinician. Furthermore, clinicians are not good at accurately assessing patients' preferences, while patients may have unrealistic expectations about their clinician's ability to "know what is best" for them. Further research is required to understand variations in patients' preferences for information and involvement in decision making, and the factors that influence them.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11533436      PMCID: PMC1765743          DOI: 10.1136/qhc.0100034..

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Health Care        ISSN: 0963-8172


  30 in total

Review 1.  What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment?

Authors:  C Charles; T Whelan; A Gafni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-18

2.  The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?

Authors:  G Salkeld; M Ryan; L Short
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 3.  How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians?

Authors:  A A Montgomery; T Fahey
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

4.  The communication of information from physician to patient: a method for increasing patient retention and satisfaction.

Authors:  K D Bertakis
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1977-08       Impact factor: 0.493

5.  The potential use of decision analysis to support shared decision making in the face of uncertainty: the example of atrial fibrillation and warfarin anticoagulation.

Authors:  A Robinson; R G Thomson
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-12

6.  Interacting effects of information and coping style in adapting to gynecologic stress: should the doctor tell all?

Authors:  S M Miller; C E Mangan
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1983-07

7.  Suffering in deference: a focus group study of older cardiac patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk.

Authors:  C Kennelly; A Bowling
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

8.  Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences.

Authors:  M Ryan; A Bate; C J Eastmond; A Ludbrook
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

9.  Understanding patients' preferences for treatment: the need for innovative methodologies.

Authors:  L J Frewer; B Salter; N Lambert
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

10.  Information and participation preferences among cancer patients.

Authors:  B R Cassileth; R V Zupkis; K Sutton-Smith; V March
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1980-06       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  82 in total

Review 1.  Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences.

Authors:  A Edwards; G Elwyn
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

Review 2.  How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians?

Authors:  A A Montgomery; T Fahey
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

3.  [Allogenic bone marrow transplantation in men].

Authors:  K A Dicker; B Löwenberg; U W Schaefer; D W van Bekkum
Journal:  Hamatol Bluttransfus       Date:  1975

4.  The use of multi-criteria decision analysis weight elicitation techniques in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study.

Authors:  Janine A van Til; James G Dolan; Anne M Stiggelbout; Karin C G M Groothuis; Maarten J Ijzerman
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Advance care planning.

Authors:  Suzanne Kite
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.659

6.  Demand and supply-based operating modes--a framework for analyzing health care service production.

Authors:  Paul Lillrank; P Johan Groop; Tomi J Malmström
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.911

7.  Behind Closed Doors: What Happens when Patients and Providers Talk about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening?: Survey of the Effects of a Community-Based Intervention.

Authors:  Lauren McCormack; Pamela Williams-Piehota; Carla Bann
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Clinical ethics, information, and communication: review of 31 cases from a clinical ethics committee.

Authors:  R Førde; I H Vandvik
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.903

9.  Physician decision making for colorectal cancer screening in the elderly.

Authors:  Carmen L Lewis; Denise Esserman; Christopher DeLeon; Michael P Pignone; Donald E Pathman; Carol Golin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-03-29       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Reasons underpinning patients' preferences for various angina treatments.

Authors:  Nigel Lambert; Gene Rowe; Ann Bowling; Shah Ebrahim; Michael Laurence; Jamie Dalrymple; Richard Thomson
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.