OBJECTIVE: To determine what family doctors think about various aspects of patient involvement in clinical decision making in Primary Care. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. LOCATION: Primary Care. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians with and without expertise in clinical communication. METHODS: Three focus groups were developed, involving 6-8 professionals per group, and took part in two meetings. The conversations were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The discussion was analysed using literature-based categories and other emerging from the text, encoding the information and making an inductive interpretation. RESULTS: Family physicians refer mainly to involving the patient in decisions by proposing a plan tailored to the knowledge of patient problems and then verifying their approval or rejection. However, some professionals ponder whether this could be classified as patient involvement, questioning the real role that both players would take at the time of deciding. CONCLUSIONS: The explanation of how family physicians would involve the patient in decisions clashes with the most widespread theories on the subject and, also opposes the view of patients who would like to be involved more actively. Taking into account discordant reflections on the relevance of considering this process as real patient involvement, it is necessary to describe a realistic theoretical model that allows further development of strategies to improve the attitude and training of professionals to patient involvement in clinical decisions.
OBJECTIVE: To determine what family doctors think about various aspects of patient involvement in clinical decision making in Primary Care. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. LOCATION: Primary Care. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians with and without expertise in clinical communication. METHODS: Three focus groups were developed, involving 6-8 professionals per group, and took part in two meetings. The conversations were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The discussion was analysed using literature-based categories and other emerging from the text, encoding the information and making an inductive interpretation. RESULTS: Family physicians refer mainly to involving the patient in decisions by proposing a plan tailored to the knowledge of patient problems and then verifying their approval or rejection. However, some professionals ponder whether this could be classified as patient involvement, questioning the real role that both players would take at the time of deciding. CONCLUSIONS: The explanation of how family physicians would involve the patient in decisions clashes with the most widespread theories on the subject and, also opposes the view of patients who would like to be involved more actively. Taking into account discordant reflections on the relevance of considering this process as real patient involvement, it is necessary to describe a realistic theoretical model that allows further development of strategies to improve the attitude and training of professionals to patient involvement in clinical decisions.