BACKGROUND: There are doubts on whether patients feel that they have sufficient information for actively participating in clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE: To describe the type of information that patients receive. To determine whether patients consider this information sufficient, and whether it contributes or not to improve clinical safety. To identify the barriers for patient participation in clinical decision making. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with 764 patients and 327 physicians. STUDY SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen health centres belonging to three primary care districts and three hospitals in Spain. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Just 35.1% (268) (95% CI 32.2, 39.1%) of patients preferred to have the last word in clinical decisions. Age (39 vs. 62%, P < 0.001) and severity of illness (38 vs. 46%, P = 0.002) increased the tendency to take a passive role. In 85.1% (650) (95% CI 83.3, 88.3%) of the cases, patients reported having received sufficient information. Lack of consultation time (29.6%, 95% CI 25.8, 32.5%) and patients' use of Internet or other sources (19.2%, 95% CI 16.4, 22.2%) were identified as new obstacles to doctor-patient communication by the patients. Only 19.6% (64) (95% CI 15.4, 24.2%) of doctors considered that they could intervene to involve patients in the decisions. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients prefer the decisions to be made by their doctor, especially those with more severe illnesses, and older patients. Patients are not normally informed about medication interactions, precautions and foreseeable complications. The information provided by general practitioners does not seem to contribute enough to the patient involvement in clinical safety.
BACKGROUND: There are doubts on whether patients feel that they have sufficient information for actively participating in clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE: To describe the type of information that patients receive. To determine whether patients consider this information sufficient, and whether it contributes or not to improve clinical safety. To identify the barriers for patient participation in clinical decision making. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with 764 patients and 327 physicians. STUDY SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen health centres belonging to three primary care districts and three hospitals in Spain. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Just 35.1% (268) (95% CI 32.2, 39.1%) of patients preferred to have the last word in clinical decisions. Age (39 vs. 62%, P < 0.001) and severity of illness (38 vs. 46%, P = 0.002) increased the tendency to take a passive role. In 85.1% (650) (95% CI 83.3, 88.3%) of the cases, patients reported having received sufficient information. Lack of consultation time (29.6%, 95% CI 25.8, 32.5%) and patients' use of Internet or other sources (19.2%, 95% CI 16.4, 22.2%) were identified as new obstacles to doctor-patient communication by the patients. Only 19.6% (64) (95% CI 15.4, 24.2%) of doctors considered that they could intervene to involve patients in the decisions. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients prefer the decisions to be made by their doctor, especially those with more severe illnesses, and older patients. Patients are not normally informed about medication interactions, precautions and foreseeable complications. The information provided by general practitioners does not seem to contribute enough to the patient involvement in clinical safety.
Authors: M Holmes-Rovner; J Kroll; N Schmitt; D R Rovner; M L Breer; M L Rothert; G Padonu; G Talarczyk Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1996 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: I M Barrio-Cantalejo; P Simón-Lorda; C Sánchez Rodríguez; A Molina-Ruiz; M I Tamayo-Velázquez; A Suess; J M Jiménez-Martín Journal: Rev Calid Asist Date: 2009-07-23
Authors: José Joaquín Mira; Olga Tomás; María Virtudes-Pérez; Cristina Nebot; Jesús Rodríguez-Marín Journal: Surgery Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Simon Smith; Muhammad Arsyad Bin Nordin; Tom Hinchy; Patrick Henn; Colm M P O'Tuathaigh Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2020-07-26 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Paul G Mathew; Jelena M Pavlovic; Alyssa Lettich; Rebecca E Wells; Carrie E Robertson; Kathleen Mullin; Larry Charleston Iv; David W Dodick; Todd J Schwedt Journal: Headache Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 5.887
Authors: Ian J Litchfield; Louise M Bentham; Richard J Lilford; Richard J McManus; Sheila M Greenfield Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Virtudes Pérez-Jover; José J Mira; Concepción Carratala-Munuera; Vicente F Gil-Guillen; Josep Basora; Adriana López-Pineda; Domingo Orozco-Beltrán Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Andreas Ihrig; I Maatouk; H C Friederich; M Baunacke; C Groeben; R Koch; C Thomas; J Huber Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 1.771
Authors: Ian Litchfield; Louise Bentham; Ann Hill; Richard J McManus; Richard Lilford; Sheila Greenfield Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: José Joaquín Mira; Irene Carrillo; Carmen Silvestre; Pastora Pérez-Pérez; Cristina Nebot; Guadalupe Olivera; Javier González de Dios; Jesús María Aranaz Andrés Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 2.692