Literature DB >> 23462141

The practitioner proposes a treatment change and the patient declines: what to do next?

Paul R Falzer1, Howard L Leventhal, Ellen Peters, Terri R Fried, Robert Kerns, Marion Michalski, Liana Fraenkel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study describes how pain practitioners can elicit the beliefs that are responsible for patients' judgments against considering a treatment change and activate collaborative decision making.
METHODS: Beliefs of 139 chronic pain patients who are in treatment but continue to experience significant pain were reduced to 7 items about the significance of pain on the patient's life. The items were aggregated into 4 decision models that predict which patients are actually considering a change in their current treatment.
RESULTS: While only 34% of study participants were considering a treatment change overall, the percentage ranged from 20 to 70, depending on their ratings about current consequences of pain, emotional influence, and long-term impact. Generalized linear model analysis confirmed that a simple additive model of these 3 beliefs is the best predictor.
CONCLUSION: Initial opposition to a treatment change is a conditional judgment and subject to change as specific beliefs become incompatible with patients' current conditions. These beliefs can be elicited through dialog by asking 3 questions.
© 2012 The Authors. Pain Practice © 2012 World Institute of Pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23462141      PMCID: PMC3668345          DOI: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2012.00573.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Pract        ISSN: 1530-7085            Impact factor:   3.183


  56 in total

1.  How should physicians involve patients in medical decisions?

Authors:  S N Whitney; S T Hawley; R J Volk
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-05-10       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options.

Authors: 
Journal:  Organ Behav Hum Decis Process       Date:  1999-04

3.  Contextual decision making and the implementation of clinical guidelines: an example from mental health.

Authors:  Paul R Falzer; D Melissa Garman
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 6.893

4.  Achieving tight control in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Laura T C van Hulst; Marlies E J L Hulscher; Piet L C M van Riel
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 7.580

Review 5.  Cognitive-emotional decision making (CEDM): a framework of patient medical decision making.

Authors:  Tara E Power; Leora C Swartzman; John W Robinson
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2010-06-22

6.  Patient participation in medical consultations: why some patients are more involved than others.

Authors:  Richard L Street; Howard S Gordon; Michael M Ward; Edward Krupat; Richard L Kravitz
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  What factors account for referral delays for patients with suspected rheumatoid arthritis?

Authors:  Lisa G Suter; Liana Fraenkel; Eric S Holmboe
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2006-04-15

8.  Informed choice and the widespread use of antiinflammatory drugs.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Dick R Wittink; John Concato; Terri Fried
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2004-04-15

9.  Predictors of adherence to diabetes medications: the role of disease and medication beliefs.

Authors:  Devin M Mann; Diego Ponieman; Howard Leventhal; Ethan A Halm
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2009-01-30

10.  Shared decision making, paternalism and patient choice.

Authors:  Lars Sandman; Christian Munthe
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2009-01-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.