BACKGROUND: Decisional conflict is defined as personal uncertainty about which course of action to take when choice among competing options involves risk, regret, or challenge to personal life values. It is influenced by inadequate knowledge, unclear values, inadequate support, and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made. Until recently, it has been studied at the individual level, which ignores the interpersonal system between patients and physicians. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of feeling uninformed, unclear values, inadequate support, and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made on one own's outcome (actor effect) and on the other person's outcome (partner effect). METHODS: After a clinical encounter, modifiable deficits and personal uncertainty were measured in physicians and patients using the Decisional Conflict Scale. Structural equation modeling was used to measure the parameters of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. RESULTS: A total of 112 dyads of physicians and patients were included in the analysis. For both patients and physicians, 2 actor effects, unclear values (P < 0:0001) and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made (P < 0:0001), were found to be positively correlated with personal uncertainty. One partner effect, feeling uninformed (P=0:03), was found to be negatively correlated with personal uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Personal uncertainty of patients and physicians is influenced not only by their respective deficits but also by the deficits of the other member of the dyad. Our results indicate that the more unclear the expression of their own values and the more they perceive that an ineffective choice had been made, the more both physicians and patients experience personal uncertainty. They also indicate that the less uninformed they feel, the more both physicians and patients experience personal uncertainty.
BACKGROUND: Decisional conflict is defined as personal uncertainty about which course of action to take when choice among competing options involves risk, regret, or challenge to personal life values. It is influenced by inadequate knowledge, unclear values, inadequate support, and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made. Until recently, it has been studied at the individual level, which ignores the interpersonal system between patients and physicians. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of feeling uninformed, unclear values, inadequate support, and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made on one own's outcome (actor effect) and on the other person's outcome (partner effect). METHODS: After a clinical encounter, modifiable deficits and personal uncertainty were measured in physicians and patients using the Decisional Conflict Scale. Structural equation modeling was used to measure the parameters of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. RESULTS: A total of 112 dyads of physicians and patients were included in the analysis. For both patients and physicians, 2 actor effects, unclear values (P < 0:0001) and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made (P < 0:0001), were found to be positively correlated with personal uncertainty. One partner effect, feeling uninformed (P=0:03), was found to be negatively correlated with personal uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Personal uncertainty of patients and physicians is influenced not only by their respective deficits but also by the deficits of the other member of the dyad. Our results indicate that the more unclear the expression of their own values and the more they perceive that an ineffective choice had been made, the more both physicians and patients experience personal uncertainty. They also indicate that the less uninformed they feel, the more both physicians and patients experience personal uncertainty.
Authors: Esther R Smith-Howell; Susan E Hickman; Salimah H Meghani; Susan M Perkins; Susan M Rawl Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Margot J Metz; Marjolein A Veerbeek; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Edwin de Beurs; Aartjan T F Beekman Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Vandra C Harris; Anne R Links; Paul Hong; Jonathan Walsh; Desi P Schoo; David E Tunkel; Charles M Stewart; Emily F Boss Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2017-08-26 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Michael S Wilkes; Frank C Day; Malathi Srinivasan; Erin Griffin; Daniel J Tancredi; Julie A Rainwater; Richard L Kravitz; Douglas S Bell; Jerome R Hoffman Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Clement K Gwede; Stacy N Davis; Shaenelle Wilson; Mitul Patel; Susan T Vadaparampil; Cathy D Meade; Brian M Rivers; Daohai Yu; Javier Torres-Roca; Randy Heysek; Philippe E Spiess; Julio Pow-Sang; Paul Jacobsen Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2014-06-26
Authors: France Légaré; Moira Stewart; Dominick Frosch; Jeremy Grimshaw; Michel Labrecque; Martine Magnan; Mathieu Ouimet; Michel Rousseau; Dawn Stacey; Trudy van der Weijden; Glyn Elwyn Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-03-13 Impact factor: 7.327