Literature DB >> 16438813

Involving patients in primary care consultations: assessing preferences using discrete choice experiments.

Mirella F Longo1, David R Cohen, Kerenza Hood, Adrian Edwards, Michael Robling, Glyn Elwyn, Ian T Russell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) involves patients and doctors contributing as partners to treatment decisions. It is not known whether or to what extent SDM contributes to the welfare arising from a consultation, and how important this contribution is relative to other attributes of a consultation. AIM: To identify patient preferences for SDM relative to other utility bearing attributes of a consultation. DESIGN OF STUDY: In parallel with a randomised trial in training GPs in SDM competencies and risk communication skills, a discrete choice experiment exercise was conducted to assess patients' utilities.
SETTING: Twenty general practices in South Wales, UK.
METHOD: Five hundred and eighty-four responders from 747 patients attending the randomised trial (response rate = 78%). All patients had one of four conditions (atrial fibrillation, menorrhagia, menopausal symptoms or prostatism) and attended a consultation with a doctor in their own practice. Patients were randomised to attend a consultation either with a doctor who had received no training in the study or risk communication training alone or SDM training alone, or both combined.
RESULTS: Five key utility bearing attributes of a consultation were identified. All significantly influenced patient's choice of preferred consultation style (P<0.001). Larger increases in utility were associated with changes on "doctor listens" attribute, followed by easily understood information, a shared treatment decision, more information and longer consultation. Utilities were influenced by whether the doctor had received risk communication training alone or SDM training alone, or both combined, prior to the consultations. The randomised trial itself had identified that the communication processes of these consultations changed significantly, with greater patient involvement in decision making, after the training interventions.
CONCLUSION: Shared treatment decisions were valued less than some other attributes of a consultation. However, patient utilities for such involvement appeared responsive to changes in experiences of consultations. This suggests that SDM may gain greater value among patients once they have experienced it.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16438813      PMCID: PMC1821413     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  22 in total

1.  Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango).

Authors:  C Charles; A Gafni; T Whelan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  Multilevel models and health economics.

Authors:  N Rice; A Jones
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1997 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 3.  Context, composition and heterogeneity: using multilevel models in health research.

Authors:  C Duncan; K Jones; G Moon
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.

Authors:  J Ware; M Kosinski; S D Keller
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  What else do we want from our health services?

Authors:  G Mooney
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation.

Authors:  G Elwyn; A Edwards; P Kinnersley
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices.

Authors:  G Elwyn; A Edwards; P Kinnersley; R Grol
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes.

Authors:  M Stewart; J B Brown; A Donner; I R McWhinney; J Oates; W W Weston; J Jordan
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 0.493

Review 9.  Patient participation in decision-making.

Authors:  E Guadagnoli; P Ward
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations.

Authors:  J G Howie; D J Heaney; M Maxwell; J J Walker
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 2.267

View more
  29 in total

1.  Patient participation in the discussions of options in Spanish primary care consultations.

Authors:  Roger Ruiz Moral; Lucía Peralta Munguía; Luis Ángel Pérula de Torres; Maria Teresa Carrión; Jorge Olloqui Mundet; Mariana Martínez
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Counting the cost of fast access: using discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences in general practice.

Authors:  Mandy Ryan; Verity Watson
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  [Patient opinion and perception of their participation in family medicine consultation decision making].

Authors:  Roger Ruiz Moral; Lucía Peralta Munguia; Luis Ángel Pérula de Torres; Jorge Olloqui Mundet; Teresa Carrión de la Fuente; Ana Sobrino López; Mercedes Losilla Domínguez; Mariana Martínez Lechuga
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 1.137

4.  Which preferred providers are really preferred? Effectiveness of insurers' channeling incentives on pharmacy choice.

Authors:  Lieke H H M Boonen; Frederik T Schut; Bas Donkers; Xander Koolman
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2009-02-26

5.  Choosing a Doctor: Does Presentation Format Affect the Way Consumers Use Health Care Performance Information?

Authors:  Patricia Kenny; Stephen Goodall; Deborah J Street; Jessica Greene
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Community preferences in general practice: important factors for choosing a general practitioner.

Authors:  Patricia Kenny; Richard De Abreu Lourenco; Chun Yee Wong; Marion Haas; Stephen Goodall
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Channeling consumers to preferred providers and the impact of status quo bias: does type of provider matter?

Authors:  Lieke H H M Boonen; Bas Donkers; Frederik T Schut
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Decision aids for familial breast cancer: exploring women's views using focus groups.

Authors:  Frances Rapport; Rachel Iredale; Wendy Jones; Stephanie Sivell; Adrian Edwards; Jonathon Gray; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Providing information to parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint analysis of professional preferences.

Authors:  Charles E Cunningham; Ken Deal; Heather Rimas; Yvonne Chen; Don H Buchanan; Kathie Sdao-Jarvie
Journal:  J Abnorm Child Psychol       Date:  2009-11

10.  Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.