IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v15y2006i12p1498-1508.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient participation in clinical decision‐making in nursing: a comparative study of nurses’ and patients’ perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Florin
  • Anna Ehrenberg
  • Margareta Ehnfors

Abstract

Aims and objectives. The aim of this study was to compare the degree of concordance between patients and Registered Nurses’ perceptions of the patients’ preferences for participation in clinical decision‐making in nursing care. A further aim was to compare patients’ experienced participation with their preferred participatory role. Background. Patient participation in clinical decision‐making is valuable and has an effect on quality of care. However, there is limited knowledge about patient preferences for participation and how nurses perceive their patients’ preferences. Methods. A comparative design was adopted with a convenient sample of 80 nurse–patient dyads. A modified version of the Control Preference Scale was used in conjunction with a questionnaire developed to elicit the experienced participation of the patient. Results. A majority of the Registered Nurses perceived that their patients preferred a higher degree of participation in decision‐making than did the patients. Differences in patient preferences were found in relation to age and social status but not to gender. Patients often experienced having a different role than what was initially preferred, e.g. a more passive role concerning needs related to communication, breathing and pain and a more active role related to activity and emotions/roles. Conclusions. Registered Nurses are not always aware of their patients’ perspective and tend to overestimate patients’ willingness to assume an active role. Registered Nurses do not successfully involve patients in clinical decision‐making in nursing care according to their own perceptions and not even to the patients’ more moderate preferences of participation. Relevance to clinical practice. A thorough assessment of the individual's preferences for participation in decision‐making seems to be the most appropriate approach to ascertain patient's involvement to the preferred level of participation. The categorization of patients as preferring a passive role, collaborative role or active role is seen as valuable information for Registered Nurses to tailor nursing care.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Florin & Anna Ehrenberg & Margareta Ehnfors, 2006. "Patient participation in clinical decision‐making in nursing: a comparative study of nurses’ and patients’ perceptions," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(12), pages 1498-1508, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:12:p:1498-1508
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01464.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01464.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01464.x?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. Entwistle, Vikki A. & Skea, Zoë C. & O'Donnell, Máire T., 2001. "Decisions about treatment: interpretations of two measures of control by women having a hysterectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 721-732, September.
    2. Guadagnoli, Edward & Ward, Patricia, 1998. "Patient participation in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 329-339, August.
    3. Davey, Heather M & Lim, Jacqueline & Butow, Phyllis N & Barratt, Alexandra L & Redman, Sally, 2004. "Women's preferences for and views on decision-making for diagnostic tests," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(9), pages 1699-1707, May.
    4. Brownlea, Arthur, 1987. "Participation: Myths, realities and prognosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 605-614, January.
    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. Bin Ding & Wei Liu & Sang-Bing Tsai & Dongxiao Gu & Fang Bian & Xuefeng Shao, 2019. "Effect of Patient Participation on Nurse and Patient Outcomes in Inpatient Healthcare," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Francisco José García-Sánchez & Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín, 2019. "Patients’ and Caregivers’ Conceptualisations of Pressure Ulcers and the Process of Decision-Making in the Context of Home Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-14, July.

    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. O' Donnell, Máire & Monz, Brigitta & Hunskaar, Steinar, 2007. "General preferences for involvement in treatment decision making among European women with urinary incontinence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(9), pages 1914-1924, May.
    2. Bin Ding & Wei Liu & Sang-Bing Tsai & Dongxiao Gu & Fang Bian & Xuefeng Shao, 2019. "Effect of Patient Participation on Nurse and Patient Outcomes in Inpatient Healthcare," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Lim, Jennifer N.W. & Edlin, Richard, 2009. "Preferences of older patients and choice of treatment location in the UK: A binary choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 252-257, August.
    5. Mauro Serapioni & Pedro Lopes Ferreira & Patrícia Antunes, 2014. "Participação em Saúde: Conceitos e Conteúdos," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 26-42, December.
    6. Susan Randles Moscato & Barbara Valanis & Christina M. Gullion & Christine Tanner & Susan E. Shapiro & Shigeko Izumi, 2007. "Predictors of Patient Satisfaction With Telephone Nursing Services," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 16(2), pages 119-137, May.
    7. Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby & Svennevig, Jan & Gulbrandsen, Pål, 2016. "Negotiating treatment preferences: Physicians' formulations of patients' stance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 26-36.
    8. 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.
    9. Werner, Perla & Vered, Iris, 2002. "Women's knowledge of new regulations about publicly funded medications for osteoporosis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 275-284, June.
    10. O'Meara, Wendy Prudhomme & Tsofa, Benjamin & Molyneux, Sassy & Goodman, Catherine & McKenzie, F. Ellis, 2011. "Community and facility-level engagement in planning and budgeting for the government health sector - A district perspective from Kenya," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 234-243, March.
    11. Timmermans, Stefan & Tietbohl, Caroline, 2018. "Fifty years of sociological leadership at Social Science and Medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 209-215.
    12. Johnstone, Megan-Jane & Kanitsaki, Olga, 2009. "Engaging patients as safety partners: Some considerations for ensuring a culturally and linguistically appropriate approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 1-7, April.
    13. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Karolina Osowiecka & Radoslaw Sroda & Arian Saied & Marek Szwiec & Sarah Mangold & Dominika Osuch & Sergiusz Nawrocki & Monika Rucinska, 2020. "Patients’ Non-Medical and Organizational Needs during Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Fraser, Suzanne & Fomiatti, Renae & Moore, David & Seear, Kate & Aitken, Campbell, 2020. "Is another relationship possible? Connoisseurship and the doctor–patient relationship for men who consume performance and image-enhancing drugs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    17. Bugge, Carol & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Watt, Ian S., 2006. "The significance for decision-making of information that is not exchanged by patients and health professionals during consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2065-2078, October.
    18. Francisco José García-Sánchez & Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín, 2019. "Patients’ and Caregivers’ Conceptualisations of Pressure Ulcers and the Process of Decision-Making in the Context of Home Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-14, July.
    19. Mariusz Duplaga, 2016. "Searching for a Role of Nursing Personnel in Developing Landscape of Ehealth: Factors Determining Attitudes toward Key Patient Empowering Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, April.
    20. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2020. "The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-31, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:12:p:1498-1508. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.