The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions—challenges for doctors

The expectation that patients will become increasingly involved in making treatment decisions poses new challenges for doctors. This article discusses what these are and how doctors might face them Health professionals are increasingly encouraged to involve patients in treatment decisions, recognising patients as experts with a unique knowledge of their own health and their preferences for treatments, health states, and outcomes.1 2 Increased patient involvement, a result of various sociopolitical changes,w1 is an important part of quality improvement since it has been associated with improved health outcomes3 w1-w9 and enables doctors to be more accountable to the public. However, this poses challenges for doctors. We discuss these in relation to the competences for shared decision making that have been proposed.4 w10 We made literature searches using Medline, Web of Science, PsychINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and HMIC (key words “consumer participation,” “patient participation,” “decision making,” “patient preferences,” “shared decision making,” “patient involvement in decision making”). We also searched references of articles, indexes of key journals, important texts about patient involvement, and key reviews. We conducted informal interviews with doctors from a range of specialties (general practice, orthopaedics, stroke medicine, accident and emergency, and vascular surgery) and recorded their opinions to provide a focus to this discussion (quotes in italics). For patients' views about treatment options to be valued and necessary, there must be a partnership between doctor and patient, but establishing one requires both time and certain skills. “There's not enough time”— The pressure of time is a perpetual challenge; doctors are particularly concerned about the implications of informing patients without allowing extra time for this.5 However, involving patients more in treatment decisions may have no significant effect on consultation length3: adequate discussion at an early stage may allow more succinct discussion later …

[1]  A. Coulter,et al.  Patients' preferences and general practitioners' decisions in the treatment of menstrual disorders. , 1994, Family practice.

[2]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences , 2001, Quality in health care : QHC.

[3]  A Bowling,et al.  Measuring patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk , 2001, Quality in health care : QHC.

[4]  NJM London,et al.  Patients' ability to recall risk associated with treatment options , 1999, The Lancet.

[5]  W Godolphin,et al.  Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. , 1999, BMJ.

[6]  L. Lenert,et al.  The Effect of Search Procedures on Utility Elicitations , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[7]  A Coulter,et al.  Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? , 1999, BMJ.

[8]  H. Stapleton,et al.  Qualitative study of evidence based leaflets in maternity care , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  B. Lo,et al.  Do patients want to participate in medical decision making? , 1984, JAMA.

[10]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation. , 1999, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[11]  C. Charles,et al.  Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[12]  J F Jekel,et al.  Perils, pitfalls, and possibilities in talking about medical risk. , 1999, JAMA.

[13]  S. Lauri,et al.  Cancer Patients’ Views and Experiences of Participation in Care and Decision Making , 2001, Nursing ethics.

[14]  J. Katz,et al.  Patient preferences and health disparities. , 2001, JAMA.

[15]  R. Deber,et al.  Physicians in health care management: 8. The patient-physician partnership: decision making, problem solving and the desire to participate. , 1994, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[16]  John E. Ware,et al.  Expanding Patient Involvement in Care , 1985 .

[17]  J. Piette,et al.  Communication of preferences for care among human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Barriers to informed decisions? , 1997, Archives of family medicine.

[18]  Communication about risk--dilemmas for general practitioners. The Department of General Practice Working Group, University of Wales College of Medicine. , 1997, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[19]  A. Lelie,et al.  Decision-making in nephrology: shared decision making? , 2000, Patient education and counseling.

[20]  T. Fahey,et al.  How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians? , 2001, Quality in health care : QHC.

[21]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Towards a feasible model for shared decision making: focus group study with general practice registrars , 1999, BMJ.

[22]  S. Kaplan,et al.  Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. , 1985, Annals of internal medicine.

[23]  G. Elwyn,et al.  One hundred years ago: Should milk be boiled? , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  B. Paterson,et al.  Health care professional support for self-care management in chronic illness: insights from diabetes research. , 2001, Patient education and counseling.