IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i6p756-765.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Direct-Observation Cohort Study of Shared Decision Making in a Primary Care Clinic

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey L. Jackson

    (General Internal Medicine Section, Zablocki VAMC, Milwaukee, WI, USA
    Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA)

  • Derek Storch

    (General Internal Medicine Section, Zablocki VAMC, Milwaukee, WI, USA)

  • Wilkins Jackson

    (General Internal Medicine Section, Zablocki VAMC, Milwaukee, WI, USA)

  • Dorothy Becher

    (Department of Preventive Medicine & Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA)

  • Patrick G. O’Malley

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA)

Abstract

Background. Observational studies suggest that shared medical decision making (SMDM) is suboptimal. Our objective was to assess patient preferences, ratings, and objective measurements of decision making and their impact on patient outcomes. Methods. Hypertensive adults presenting for routine care with their primary care physician completed previsit surveys assessing SMDM preferences. Postvisit surveys assessed the degree of SMDM during the encounter, patient satisfaction, and trust. Encounters were audiotaped and transcripts were coded for type of decisions made as well as SMDM quality using OPTION-5. Adherence and blood pressure were measured at baseline and at 4 weeks. Results. Among 105 encounters, there were 7.4 decisions per visit; most were basic, such as refills and routine testing. Objective measures of decision making indicated that the degree of SMDM was lower than reported by patients or physicians, although physician ratings were more accurate. Previsit, 54% of patients expressed a desire for equally shared medical decision making, 24% preferred physician dominated decision making, and 18% preferred that they make the decisions. Postvisit, patients reported experiencing SMDM in 57% of encounters, with high concordance between desired and perceived decision making. Discordance between the patient’s desired and experienced SMDM reduced trust and satisfaction. The quality of shared decisions had no impact on adherence or blood pressure at 4 weeks. Limitations. Single site, small sample. Conclusions. Decisions are common during internal medicine primary care visits, and most are basic. Most patients preferred SMDM, and their perceptions of the visit decision-making style were concordant with their preferences although higher than objective measures suggested. Physician ratings of the quality of SMDM were more accurate than patient ratings. Discordance between patients’ expected and experienced SMDM lowered satisfaction and trust.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey L. Jackson & Derek Storch & Wilkins Jackson & Dorothy Becher & Patrick G. O’Malley, 2020. "Direct-Observation Cohort Study of Shared Decision Making in a Primary Care Clinic," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 756-765, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:6:p:756-765
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20936272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20936272
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20936272?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gafni, Amiram & Charles, Cathy & Whelan, Tim, 1998. "The physician-patient encounter: The physician as a perfect agent for the patient versus the informed treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 347-354, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lily N. Stalter & Nathan D. Baggett & Bret M. Hanlon & Anne Buffington & Elle L. Kalbfell & Amy B. Zelenski & Robert M. Arnold & Justin T. Clapp & Margaret L. Schwarze, 2023. "Identifying Patterns in Preoperative Communication about High-Risk Surgical Intervention: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 487-497, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    2. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    3. Ruth Astbury & Ashley Shepherd & Helen Cheyne, 2017. "Working in partnership: the application of shared decision‐making to health visitor practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1-2), pages 215-224, January.
    4. Thomas Rice, 2012. "The Physician as the Patient’s Agent," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 25, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Rosella LEVAGGI & Lise ROCHAIX, 2007. "Exit, Choice Or Loyalty: Patient Driven Competition In Primary Care," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 78(4), pages 501-535, December.
    6. Sood Neeraj & Philipson Tomas J. & Huckfeldt Peter, 2013. "Quantifying the Value of Personalized Medicines: Evidence from COX-2 Inhibitors," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-22, April.
    7. Nick Bansback & Mark Harrison & Carlo Marra, 2016. "Does Introducing Imprecision around Probabilities for Benefit and Harm Influence the Way People Value Treatments?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 490-502, May.
    8. Angela Fagerlin & Karen R. Sepucha & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Patients’ Knowledge about 9 Common Health Conditions: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 35-52, September.
    9. Riise, Julie & Hole, Arne Risa & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Skåtun, Diane, 2016. "GPs' implicit prioritization through clinical choices – evidence from three national health services," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 169-183.
    10. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    11. Jennifer Amsterlaw & Brian Zikmund-Fisher & Angela Fagerlin & Peter A. Ubel, 2006. "Can avoidance of complications lead to biased healthcare decisions?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 64-75, July.
    12. Mihaela Cornelia Prejmerean & Simona Vasilache, 2008. "A LSCM approach to the Romanian pharmaceuticals market," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 10(24), pages 166-176, June.
    13. Peter Heinrich & Gerhard Schwabe, 2018. "Facilitating Informed Decision-Making in Financial Service Encounters," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 60(4), pages 317-329, August.
    14. Joanna Coast, 2001. "Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 159-174, March.
    15. Mo Xiong & Teresa E. Stone & Sue Turale & Marcia A. Petrini, 2016. "Women's experiences of making healthcare decisions about their breast cancer: A phenomenological study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 314-320, September.
    16. M. Paula Fitzgerald & Farnoush Reshadi & Matthew Sarkees, 2022. "Patient susceptibility to over‐trust: The case of off‐label prescribing," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 849-875, June.
    17. Philippe Batifoulier, 2014. "De l’aléa moral du patient aux inégalités d’accès aux soins," Working Papers hal-04141361, HAL.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:64-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Thomas Butt, 2019. "Measuring the Benefits of Decision Aids for Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 143-150, June.
    20. Domenico Depalo & Jay Bhattacharya & Vincenzo Atella & Federico Belotti, 2019. "When Technological Advance Meets Physician Learning in Drug Prescribing," NBER Working Papers 26202, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Fraeyman, Jessica & Symons, Linda & De Loof, Hans & De Meyer, Guido R.Y. & Remmen, Roy & Beutels, Philippe & Van Hal, Guido, 2015. "Medicine price awareness in chronic patients in Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 217-223.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:6:p:756-765. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.