IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i3p375-386.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Arwen H. Pieterse

    (Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands)

  • Kim Brandes

    (Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, NSW, The Netherlands)

  • Jessica de Graaf

    (Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, NSW, The Netherlands)

  • Joyce E. de Boer

    (Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, NSW, The Netherlands)

  • Nanon H. M. Labrie

    (Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Anouk Knops

    (Dutch Federation of Patients’ Organizations, Quality of Care Department, BM, Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Cornelia F. Allaart

    (Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands)

  • Johanna E. A. Portielje

    (Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands)

  • Willem Jan W. Bos

    (Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
    Department of Internal Medicine, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands)

  • Anne M. Stiggelbout

    (Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, NSW, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Purpose Shared decision making calls for clinician communication strategies that aim to foster choice awareness and to present treatment options neutrally, such as by not showing a preference. Evidence for the effectiveness of these communication strategies to enhance patient involvement in treatment decision making is lacking. We tested the effects of 2 strategies in an online randomized video-vignettes experiment. Methods We developed disease-specific video vignettes for rheumatic disease, cancer, and kidney disease showcasing a physician presenting 2 treatment options. We tested the strategies in a 2 (choice awareness communication present/absent) by 2 (physician preference communication present/absent) randomized between-subjects design. We asked patients and disease-naïve participants to view 1 video vignette while imagining being the patient and to report perceived room for involvement (primary outcome), understanding of treatment information, treatment preference, satisfaction with the consultation, and trust in the physician (secondary outcomes). Differences across experimental conditions were assessed using 2-way analyses of variance. Results A total of 324 patients and 360 disease-naïve respondents participated (mean age, 52 ± 14.7 y, 54% female, 56% lower educated, mean health literacy, 12 ± 2.1 on a 3–15 scale). The results showed that choice awareness communication had a positive (M present = 5.2 v. M absent = 5.0, P = 0.042, η 2 partial = 0.006) and physician preference communication had no (M present = 5.0 v. M absent = 5.1, P = 0.144, η 2 partial = 0.003) significant effect on perceived room for involvement in decision making. Physician preference communication steered patients toward preferring that treatment option (M present = 4.7 v. M absent = 5.3, P = 0.006, η 2 partial = 0.011). The strategies had no significant effect on understanding, satisfaction, or trust. Conclusions This is the first experimental evidence for a small effect of fostering choice awareness and no effect of physician preference on perceived room to participate in decision making. Physician preference steered patients toward preferring that option.

Suggested Citation

  • Arwen H. Pieterse & Kim Brandes & Jessica de Graaf & Joyce E. de Boer & Nanon H. M. Labrie & Anouk Knops & Cornelia F. Allaart & Johanna E. A. Portielje & Willem Jan W. Bos & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2022. "Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 375-386, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:375-386
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211056334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211056334
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211056334?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. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    2. Ellen G. Engelhardt & Ellen M. A. Smets & Irini Sorial & Anne M. Stiggelbout & Arwen H. Pieterse & Marij A. Hillen, 2020. "Is There a Relationship between Shared Decision Making and Breast Cancer Patients’ Trust in Their Medical Oncologists?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(1), pages 52-61, January.
    3. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1999. "Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 651-661, September.
    4. L. Aubree Shay & Jennifer Elston Lafata, 2015. "Where Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 114-131, January.
    5. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & John C. Hershey & Peter A. Ubel, 2002. "The Role of Physicians’ Recommendations in Medical Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(3), pages 262-271, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    2. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Underman, Kelly & Hirshfield, Laura E., 2016. "Detached concern?: Emotional socialization in twenty-first century medical education," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 94-101.
    5. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    6. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    7. Shosh Shahrabani & Amiram Gafni & Uri Ben-Zion, 2008. "Low Flu Shot Rates Puzzle—Some Plausible Behavioral Explanations," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 66-72, March.
    8. Barnett, Erin R. & Boucher, Elizabeth A. & Neubacher, Katrin & Carpenter-Song, Elizabeth A., 2016. "Decision-making around psychotropic medications for children in foster care: Perspectives from foster parents," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 206-213.
    9. Peek, Monica E. & Odoms-Young, Angela & Quinn, Michael T. & Gorawara-Bhat, Rita & Wilson, Shannon C. & Chin, Marshall H., 2010. "Race and shared decision-making: Perspectives of African-Americans with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-9, July.
    10. Krystina Lewis & Dawn Stacey & Dan Matlock, 2014. "Making Decisions About Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators from Implantation to End of Life: An Integrative Review of Patients’ Perspectives," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 243-260, September.
    11. May, Carl, 2013. "Agency and implementation: Understanding the embedding of healthcare innovations in practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-33.
    12. Entwistle, Vikki & Williams, Brian & Skea, Zoe & MacLennan, Graeme & Bhattacharya, Siladitya, 2006. "Which surgical decisions should patients participate in and how? Reflections on women's recollections of discussions about variants of hysterectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 499-509, January.
    13. Glory Apantaku & Magda Aguiar & K. Julia Kaal & Patrick J. McDonald & Mary B. Connolly & Viorica Hrincu & Judy Illes & Mark Harrison, 2022. "Understanding Attributes that Influence Physician and Caregiver Decisions About Neurotechnology for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Formative Qualitative Study to Support the Development of a Dis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 219-232, March.
    14. Christoph Engel & Werner Gueth, 2018. "Modeling a satisficing judge," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(2), pages 220-246, May.
    15. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    16. Hardman, Doug & Geraghty, Adam W.A. & Lown, Mark & Bishop, Felicity L., 2020. "Subjunctive medicine: Enacting efficacy in general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    17. Kirsten McCaffery & Les Irwig & Patrick Bossuyt, 2007. "Patient Decision Aids to Support Clinical Decision Making: Evaluating the Decision or the Outcomes of the Decision," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 619-625, September.
    18. Moss, Jennifer L. & Reiter, Paul L. & Rimer, Barbara K. & Brewer, Noel T., 2016. "Collaborative patient-provider communication and uptake of adolescent vaccines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 100-107.
    19. Paton, Alexis & Armstrong, Natalie & Smith, Lucy & Lotto, Robyn, 2020. "Parents’ decision-making following diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly in pregnancy: Practical, theoretical and ethical tensions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    20. France Légaré & Stéphane Turcotte & Dawn Stacey & Stéphane Ratté & Jennifer Kryworuchko & Ian Graham, 2012. "Patients’ Perceptions of Sharing in Decisions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, March.

    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:42:y:2022:i:3:p:375-386. 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.