Literature DB >> 20881156

How does feeling informed relate to being informed? The DECISIONS survey.

Karen R Sepucha1, Angela Fagerlin, Mick P Couper, Carrie A Levin, Eleanor Singer, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An important part of delivering high-quality, patient-centered care is making sure patients are informed about decisions regarding their health care. The objective was to examine whether patients' perceptions about how informed they were about common medical decisions are related to their ability to answer various knowledge questions.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted November 2006 to May 2007 of a national sample of US adults identified by random-digit dialing. Participants were 2575 English-speaking US adults aged 40 and older who had made 1 of 9 medication, cancer screening, or elective surgery decisions within the previous 2 years. Participants rated how informed they felt on a scale of 0 (not at all informed) to 10 (extremely well-informed), answered decision-specific knowledge questions, and completed standard demographic questions.
RESULTS: Overall, 36% felt extremely well informed (10), 30% felt well informed (8-9), and 33% felt not at all to somewhat informed (0-7). Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed no overall relationship between knowledge scores and perceptions of being extremely well informed (odds ratio [OR] = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.42, P = 0.78). Three patterns emerged for decision types: a negative relationship for cancer screening decisions (OR = 0.58, CI 0.33-1.02, P = 0.06), no relationship for medication decisions (OR = 0.99, CI 0.54-1.83, P = 0.98), and a positive relationship for surgery decisions (OR = 3.07, 95% CI 0.90-10.54, P = 0.07). Trust in the doctor was associated with feeling extremely well-informed for all 3 types of decisions. Lower education and lower income were also associated with feeling extremely well informed for medication and screening decisions. Retrospective survey data are subject to recall bias, and participants may have had different perspectives or more factual knowledge closer to the time of the decision.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients facing common medical decisions are not able to accurately assess how well informed they are. Clinicians need to be proactive in providing adequate information to patients and testing patients' understanding to ensure informed decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20881156     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10379647

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  36 in total

1.  The role of perceived benefits and costs in patients' medical decisions.

Authors:  Eleanor Singer; Mick P Couper; Angela Fagerlin; Floyd J Fowler; Carrie A Levin; Peter A Ubel; John Van Hoewyk; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Associations among perceived and objective disease knowledge and satisfaction with physician communication in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Julie A Wright Nunes; Kenneth A Wallston; Svetlana K Eden; Ayumi K Shintani; T Alp Ikizler; Kerri L Cavanaugh
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 10.612

3.  The DECISIONS study: synopsis of evidence for shared decision-making and quality patient-provider communication.

Authors:  Molly Jean Ferguson
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 4.  Informed consent in dental care and research for the older adult population: A systematic review.

Authors:  Amrita Mukherjee; Alicia A Livinski; Joseph Millum; Steffany Chamut; Shahdokht Boroumand; Timothy J Iafolla; Margo R Adesanya; Bruce A Dye
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 3.634

5.  Disruptive Technology. Can Electronic Portals Promote Communication in the Intensive Care Unit?

Authors:  Thomas S Valley; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2016-03

6.  Patient knowledge of blood pressure target is associated with improved blood pressure control in chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Julie A Wright-Nunes; James Matthew Luther; Talat Alp Ikizler; Kerri L Cavanaugh
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2012-03-27

7.  Development and utilization of complementary communication channels for treatment decision making and survivorship issues among cancer patients: The CIS Research Consortium Experience.

Authors:  Linda Fleisher; Kuang Yi Wen; Suzanne M Miller; Michael Diefenbach; Annette L Stanton; Mary Ropka; Marion Morra; Peter C Raich
Journal:  Internet Interv       Date:  2015-11-01

Review 8.  Achieving Goal-Concordant Care: A Conceptual Model and Approach to Measuring Serious Illness Communication and Its Impact.

Authors:  Justin J Sanders; J Randall Curtis; James A Tulsky
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 2.947

9.  Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Carmen L Lewis; Michael P Pignone; Mick P Couper; Michael J Barry; Joann G Elmore; Carrie A Levin; John Van Hoewyk; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Participants' recall and understanding of genomic research and large-scale data sharing.

Authors:  Jill Oliver Robinson; Melody J Slashinski; Tao Wang; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.