IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i5p767-777.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact on Decisions to Start or Continue Medicines of Providing Information to Patients about Possible Benefits and/or Harms

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel A. Crockett
  • Stephen Sutton
  • Fiona M. Walter
  • Megan Clinch
  • Theresa M. Marteau
  • John Benson

Abstract

Background . The impact of providing information about medicines to patients on decisions about starting or continuing them is unknown. Purpose . To estimate the impact on decisions to start or continue medicines, of providing information to patients about possible benefits and/or harms. Data Sources . Electronic searches from 1980 to October 2010; reference and citation searches of included studies. Study Selection . Two investigators assessed studies' eligibility against inclusion criteria: randomized or pseudorandomized trials; participants older than 16 years and deciding for themselves; one group received information about possible benefits and/or harms of a potentially beneficial medicine, compared with another who did not; d) a measure of decision about starting or continuing a medicine. Data Extraction . One investigator extracted all data, checked by a second. Data Synthesis . Eight studies were included, covering a range of medicines. There was no consistent impact of interventions on decisions about whether to start or continue medicines (pooled odds ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–1.70; P = 0.74 ). Among those who received more information, knowledge was increased (pooled mean difference 8.47; 95% CI 2.17–14.77; P = 0.008), and decisional conflict was reduced (pooled mean difference -0.15; 95% CI -0.24 to -0.06; P = .001). Limitations . A small number of studies across different clinical contexts, of uncertain heterogeneity, were included. Conclusions . Providing information to patients about possible benefits and/or harms has no consistent effect on the number who decide to start or continue medicines, although it increases patients' knowledge and reduces their decisional conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel A. Crockett & Stephen Sutton & Fiona M. Walter & Megan Clinch & Theresa M. Marteau & John Benson, 2011. "Impact on Decisions to Start or Continue Medicines of Providing Information to Patients about Possible Benefits and/or Harms," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 767-777, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:5:p:767-777
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11400420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X11400420
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X11400420?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. Pound, Pandora & Britten, Nicky & Morgan, Myfanwy & Yardley, Lucy & Pope, Catherine & Daker-White, Gavin & Campbell, Rona, 2005. "Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 133-155, July.
    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. Polak, Louisa & Green, Judith, 2020. "Rethinking decision-making in the context of preventive medication: How taking statins becomes “the right thing to do”," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    2. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    3. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    4. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    5. France Légaré & Annette M. O'Connor & Ian D. Graham & Georges A. Wells & Stéphane Tremblay, 2006. "Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 373-390, July.
    6. Allison Williams & Jac Kee Low & Elizabeth Manias & Kimberley Crawford, 2016. "The transplant team's support of kidney transplant recipients to take their prescribed medications: a collective responsibility," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(15-16), pages 2251-2261, August.
    7. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Rebecca J Bartlett Ellis & Janet L Welch, 2017. "Medication‐taking behaviours in chronic kidney disease with multiple chronic conditions: a meta‐ethnographic synthesis of qualitative studies," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5-6), pages 586-598, March.
    11. Jyh-Jeng Wu & Yueh-Mei Chen & Paul C. Talley & Kuang-Ming Kuo, 2021. "Does Online Community Participation Contribute to Medication Adherence? An Empirical Study of Patients with Chronic Diseases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-16, May.
    12. Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    13. Meike Müller-Engelmann & Norbert Donner-Banzhoff & Heidi Keller & Lydia Rosinger & Carsten Sauer & Kerstin Rehfeldt & Tanja Krones, 2013. "When Decisions Should Be Shared," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 37-47, January.
    14. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    19. Solomon, Josie & Knapp, Peter & Raynor, D.K. & Atkin, Karl, 2013. "Worlds apart? An exploration of prescribing and medicine-taking decisions by patients, GPs and local policy makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 264-272.
    20. Debra Kerr & Rosie Crone & Trisha Dunning, 2020. "Perspectives about dignity during acute care for older people and their relatives: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(21-22), pages 4116-4127, November.

    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:31:y:2011:i:5:p:767-777. 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.