A typology of preferences for participation in healthcare decision making
Classifying patients as "active" or "passive" with regard to healthcare decision making is misleading, since patients have different desires for different components of the decision-making process. Distinguishing patients' desired roles is an essential step towards promoting care that respects and responds to individual patients' preferences. We included items on the 2004 Wisconsin Longitudinal Study mail survey measuring preferences for four components of the decision-making process: physician knowledge of patient medical history, physician disclosure of treatment choices, discussion of treatment choices, and selection of treatment choice. We characterized preference types for 5199 older adults using cluster analysis. Ninety-six percent of respondents are represented by four preference types, all of which prefer maximal information exchange with physicians. Fifty-seven percent of respondents wanted to retain personal control over important medical decisions ("autonomists"). Among the autonomists, 81% preferred to discuss treatment choices with their physician. Thirty-nine percent of respondents wanted their physician to make important medical decisions ("delegators"). Among the delegators, 41% preferred to discuss treatment choices. Female gender, higher educational attainment, better self-rated health, fewer prescription medications, and having a shorter duration at a usual place of care predicted a significantly higher probability of the most active involvement in discussing and selecting treatment choices. The overwhelming majority of older adults want to be given treatment options and have their physician know everything about their medical history; however, there are substantial differences in how they want to be involved in discussing and selecting treatments.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 63 (2006)
Issue (Month): 5 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:5:p:1158-1169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.