IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0198729.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared decision making between patient and GP about referrals from primary care: Does gatekeeping make a difference?

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandru M Rotar
  • Michael J Van Den Berg
  • Willemijn Schäfer
  • Dionne S Kringos
  • Niek S Klazinga

Abstract

Primary care faces challenging times in many countries, mainly caused by an ageing population. The GPs’ role to match patients’ demand with medical need becomes increasingly complex with the growing multiple conditions population. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as ideal to the treatment decision making process. Understanding GPs’ perception on SDM about patient referrals and whether patients’ preferences are considered, becomes increasingly important for improving health outcomes and patient satisfaction. This study aims to 1) understand whether countries vary in how GPs perceive SDM, in patients’ referral, 2) describe to what extent SDM in GPs’ referrals differ between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems, and 3) identify what factors GPs consider when referring to specialists and describing how this differs between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems. Data were collected between October 2011 and December 2013 in 32 countries through the QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe). The first question was answered by assessing GPs’ perception on who takes the referral decision. For the second question, a multilevel logistic model was applied. For the third question we analysed the GPs’ responses on what patient logistics and need arguments they consider in the referral process. We found: 1) variation in GPs reported SDM– 90% to 35%, 2) a negative correlation between gatekeeper systems and SDM—however, some countries strongly deviate and 3) GPs in gatekeeper systems more often consider patient interests, whereas in non-gatekeeping countries the GP’s value more own experience with specialists and benchmarking information. Our findings imply that GPs in gatekeeper systems seem to be less inclined to SDM than GPs in a non-gatekeeping system. The relation between gatekeeping/non-gatekeeping and SDM is not straightforward. A more contextualized approach is needed to understand the relation between gatekeeping as a system design feature and its relation with and/or impact on SDM.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandru M Rotar & Michael J Van Den Berg & Willemijn Schäfer & Dionne S Kringos & Niek S Klazinga, 2018. "Shared decision making between patient and GP about referrals from primary care: Does gatekeeping make a difference?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-9, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0198729
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198729
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198729
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198729&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0198729?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0198729. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.