Involving patients in primary care consultations: assessing preferences using discrete choice experiments.

BACKGROUND Shared decision making (SDM) involves patients and doctors contributing as partners to treatment decisions. It is not known whether or to what extent SDM contributes to the welfare arising from a consultation, and how important this contribution is relative to other attributes of a consultation. AIM To identify patient preferences for SDM relative to other utility bearing attributes of a consultation. DESIGN OF STUDY In parallel with a randomised trial in training GPs in SDM competencies and risk communication skills, a discrete choice experiment exercise was conducted to assess patients' utilities. SETTING Twenty general practices in South Wales, UK. METHOD Five hundred and eighty-four responders from 747 patients attending the randomised trial (response rate = 78%). All patients had one of four conditions (atrial fibrillation, menorrhagia, menopausal symptoms or prostatism) and attended a consultation with a doctor in their own practice. Patients were randomised to attend a consultation either with a doctor who had received no training in the study or risk communication training alone or SDM training alone, or both combined. RESULTS Five key utility bearing attributes of a consultation were identified. All significantly influenced patient's choice of preferred consultation style (P<0.001). Larger increases in utility were associated with changes on "doctor listens" attribute, followed by easily understood information, a shared treatment decision, more information and longer consultation. Utilities were influenced by whether the doctor had received risk communication training alone or SDM training alone, or both combined, prior to the consultations. The randomised trial itself had identified that the communication processes of these consultations changed significantly, with greater patient involvement in decision making, after the training interventions. CONCLUSION Shared treatment decisions were valued less than some other attributes of a consultation. However, patient utilities for such involvement appeared responsive to changes in experiences of consultations. This suggests that SDM may gain greater value among patients once they have experienced it.

[1]  G. Mooney What else do we want from our health services? , 1994, Social Science & Medicine (1967).

[2]  G. Elwyn,et al.  The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision‐making tasks , 2005, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[3]  Developing professional ability to involve patients in their care: pull or push? , 2001 .

[4]  K. Lancaster A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[5]  Andrew M. Jones,et al.  Multilevel models and health economics. , 1997, Health economics.

[6]  Angela Bate,et al.  Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care , 2001 .

[7]  G. Elwyn,et al.  How Should Effectiveness of Risk Communication to Aid Patients' Decisions Be Judged? , 1999, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[8]  M. Stewart,et al.  The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. , 2000, The Journal of family practice.

[9]  M. Ryan Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[10]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  The development of COMRADE--a patient-based outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of risk communication and treatment decision making in consultations. , 2003, Patient education and counseling.

[11]  C. Charles,et al.  Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). , 1997, Social science & medicine.

[12]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. , 2004, Family practice.

[13]  M. Ryan Agency in health care: lessons for economists from sociologists , 1994 .

[14]  M. Ryan,et al.  The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? , 2000, Health economics.

[15]  P Kinnersley,et al.  Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. , 2000, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[16]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. , 2003, Applied health economics and health policy.

[17]  E. Guadagnoli,et al.  Patient participation in decision-making. , 1998, Social science & medicine.

[18]  G. Moon,et al.  Context, composition and heterogeneity: using multilevel models in health research. , 1998, Social science & medicine.

[19]  D. Maynard,et al.  Interaction and Asymmetry in Clinical Discourse , 1991, American Journal of Sociology.

[20]  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.

[21]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. , 2004, Family practice.

[22]  S. Payne,et al.  Observational study of effect of patient centredness and positive approach on outcomes of general practice consultations , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  N. Freemantle,et al.  The commercialization of clinical research: who pays the piper, calls the tune? , 2004, Family practice.

[24]  E P Kroes,et al.  STATED PREFERENCE TECHNIQUES: A GUIDE TO PRACTICE , 1990 .

[25]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  A Comparison of Experimental Design Strategies for Multinomial Logit Models : The Case of Generic Attributes , 2001 .

[26]  V. Entwistle,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2018, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[27]  J. Ware,et al.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. , 1996, Medical care.

[28]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .

[29]  P. Shackley,et al.  What is the Role of the Consumer in Health Care? , 1994, Journal of Social Policy.

[30]  D. Heaney,et al.  A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. , 1998, Family practice.

[31]  A. Scott,et al.  Patients, Doctors and Contracts: An Application of Principal-Agent Theory to the Doctor-Patient Relationship , 1999 .

[32]  P Kinnersley,et al.  Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments. , 2001, Patient education and counseling.

[33]  A Gafni,et al.  The physician-patient encounter: the physician as a perfect agent for the patient versus the informed treatment decision-making model. , 1998, Social science & medicine.