Literature DB >> 9051561

Patients' preferences for risk disclosure and role in decision making for invasive medical procedures.

D J Mazur1, D H Hickam.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of involvement patients want in decision making related to the acceptance or rejection of an invasive medical intervention and whether their preference for decision making is related to their preference for qualitative (verbal) or quantitative (numeric) information about the risks of the procedure.
SETTING: A university-based Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using structured interviews of consecutive patients seen for continuity care visits in a general medicine clinic. PATIENTS: Four hundred and sixty-seven consecutive patients with a mean age of 65.2 years (SD 10.70 years, range 31-88 years) and with a mean of 12.6 years (SD 2.96 years, range 0-24 years) of formal education.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In the context of an invasive diagnostic or therapeutic intervention, patients were asked whether they preferred patient-based, physician-based, or shared patient-physician decision making. Patients were asked to give the ratio of patient-to-physician decision making they preferred, and whether they preferred discussions using words, numbers, or both. Of 467 subjects, 318 (68%) preferred shared decision making; 100 (21.4%) preferred physician-based decision making; and 49 (10.5%) preferred patient-based decision making. In terms of risk disclosure, 436 (93.4%) preferred that their physician disclose risk information to them. Of these 436 patients, 42.7% preferred disclosure of information about the probability of adverse outcomes using qualitative (verbal) expressions of probability; 35.7% preferred disclosure in terms of quantitative (numeric) expressions of probability; and 9.8% preferred disclosure in both qualitative and quantitative terms. Younger patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.96; confidence interval [CI] 0.93, 0.99), patients who had at least one stroke (OR 3.03; CI 1.03, 8.90), and patients who preferred to discuss risk information with their physicians in terms of numbers (OR 2.39; CI 1.40, 4.06) tended to prefer patient-based or shared decision making.
CONCLUSIONS: Male veterans consistently preferred shared patient-physician decision making in the context of invasive medical interventions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9051561      PMCID: PMC1497069          DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00016.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  15 in total

1.  Informed consent--a fairy tale? Law's vision.

Authors:  Jay Katz
Journal:  Univ Pittsbg Law Rev       Date:  1977

2.  Patient interpretations of terms connoting low probabilities when communicating about surgical risk.

Authors:  D J Mazur; D H Hickam
Journal:  Theor Surg       Date:  1993

3.  (Almost) everything you ever wanted to know about informed consent. [Review of: Faden, RR and Beauchamp, TL. A history and theory of informed concsent. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986].

Authors:  A M Capron
Journal:  Med Humanit Rev       Date:  1987-01

4.  Measuring patients' desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients.

Authors:  J Ende; L Kazis; A Ash; M A Moskowitz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1989 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Why the goals of informed consent are not realized: treatise on informed consent for the primary care physician.

Authors:  D J Mazur
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1988 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Measuring consumer desire for participation in clinical decision making.

Authors:  I B Vertinsky; W A Thompson; D Uyeno
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1974       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Between never and always.

Authors:  R M Kenney
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1981-10-29       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Barriers to informed consent.

Authors:  C W Lidz; A Meisel; M Osterweis; J L Holden; J H Marx; M R Munetz
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Do patients want to participate in medical decision making?

Authors:  W M Strull; B Lo; G Charles
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1984-12-07       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Information and participation preferences among cancer patients.

Authors:  B R Cassileth; R V Zupkis; K Sutton-Smith; V March
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1980-06       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  29 in total

1.  Perceptions of benefit and risk of patients undergoing first-time elective percutaneous coronary revascularization.

Authors:  E S Holmboe; D A Fiellin; E Cusanelli; M Remetz; H M Krumholz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  The problematic of decision-sharing: deconstructing 'cholesterol' in a clinical encounter.

Authors:  Richard Gwyn; Glyn Elwyn; Adrian Edwards; Annabelle Mooney
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Comprehension of the description of side effects in drug information leaflets: a survey of doctors, pharmacists and lawyers.

Authors:  Andreas Ziegler; Anka Hadlak; Steffi Mehlbeer; Inke R König
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Utility of a Referral Letter to Improve Comprehensibility of Cancer Patients in Palliative Care: a Single-Center Study.

Authors:  Eva-Marie Kloeppel; Hani Hanaya; Eckart Seilacher; Sarah Schroth; Patrick Liebl; Christian Keinki; Marie Jolin Koester; Jutta Huebner
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  The role of doctor's opinion in shared decision making: what does shared decision making really mean when considering invasive medical procedures?

Authors:  Dennis J Mazur; David H Hickam; Marcus D Mazur; Matthew D Mazur
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Views of treatment decision making from adolescents with chronic illnesses and their parents: a pilot study.

Authors:  Jennifer M Knopf; Richard W Hornung; Gail B Slap; Robert F DeVellis; Maria T Britto
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Patient assessments of the most important medical decision during a hospitalization.

Authors:  Thomas V Perneger; Agathe Charvet-Bérard; Arnaud Perrier
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Patients' perception of the informed consent process for neurooncology clinical trials.

Authors:  Eva Knifed; Nir Lipsman; Warren Mason; Mark Bernstein
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2008-04-03       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 9.  Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice.

Authors:  Wendy Nelson; Valerie F Reyna; Angela Fagerlin; Isaac Lipkus; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2008-08-02

10.  Implementing an innovative consent form: the PREDICT experience.

Authors:  Carole Decker; Suzanne V Arnold; Olawale Olabiyi; Homaa Ahmad; Elizabeth Gialde; Jamie Luark; Lisa Riggs; Terry DeJaynes; Gabriel E Soto; John A Spertus
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2008-12-31       Impact factor: 7.327

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.