IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v33y2013i1p37-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Decisions Should Be Shared

Author

Listed:
  • Meike Müller-Engelmann
  • Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
  • Heidi Keller
  • Lydia Rosinger
  • Carsten Sauer
  • Kerstin Rehfeldt
  • Tanja Krones

Abstract

Background . Shared decision making (SDM) is often advocated as an ideal for making medical decisions. Until now, however, opinions regarding which treatment situations warrant SDM have not been systematically investigated. The purpose of this study was to examine social norms regarding medical decision making, using a factorial survey design. Methods . The factorial survey applied in this study consisted of 7 situational factors (e.g., the reason for consultation), each with 2 to 3 levels (e.g., prevention and severe disease). These factors were turned into various descriptions of treatment situations. A total of 101 physicians, 115 patients, and 113 members of self-help groups participated in the study. Each participant assessed 10 vignettes using a 5-point scale to indicate who they thought should make the decision in each specific situation. Results . Most assessments across the 3 groups called for a shared decision (39%). Ordered logistic regression analysis demonstrated that, according to study participants, all 7 situational factors (reason for consultation, time frame of negative outcomes, time pressure, number of therapeutic options, side effects, scientific evidence of efficacy, and desire to participate) significantly affected how decisions regarding treatment should be made. The strongest factor was the patient’s desire to participate in decision making (odds ratio = 1.84; P ≤ 0.001), followed by the reason for consultation (odds ratio = 0.69; P ≤ 0.001). Conclusions . This study reveals that there is a general desire for SDM in a variety of treatment situations. Furthermore, based on the responses of our participants, our findings also lay the framework in determining which treatment situations warrant SDM.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:1:p:37-47
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12458159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X12458159
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X12458159?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. Mandy Ryan & Emma McIntosh & Phil Shackley, 1998. "Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 373-378, June.
    3. Richard Williams, 2010. "Fitting heterogeneous choice models with oglm," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 10(4), pages 540-567, December.
    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. Drewniak, Daniel & Krones, Tanja & Sauer, Carsten & Wild, Verina, 2016. "The influence of patients’ immigration background and residence permit status on treatment decisions in health care. Results of a factorial survey among general practitioners in Switzerland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 64-73.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Dowling, Michael & O’Gorman, Colm & Puncheva, Petya & Vanwalleghem, Dieter, 2019. "Trust and SME attitudes towards equity financing across Europe," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 1-1.
    6. Kekezi, Orsa & Mellander, Charlotta, 2017. "Geography and Media – Does a Local Editorial Office Increase the Consumption of Local News?," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 447, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    7. Charlie Tchinda & Marcus Dejardin, 2021. "Are Business Policy Measures in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic to Be Equally Valued? An Exploration According to SMEs Owners’ Business Expectations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-42, October.
    8. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Ekaterina Oparina & Sorawoot Srisuma, 2022. "Analyzing Subjective Well-Being Data with Misclassification," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 730-743, April.
    12. Shelley Farrar & Mandy Ryan, 1999. "Response‐ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 75-79, February.
    13. Wixe, Sofia & Nilsson, Pia & Naldi, Lucia & Westlund, Hans, 2017. "Disentangling Innovation in Small Food Firms: The role of External Knowledge, Support, and Collaboration," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 446, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    14. 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.
    15. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Ryon, Stephanie Bontrager & Chiricos, Ted & Siennick, Sonja E. & Barrick, Kelle & Bales, William, 2017. "Sentencing in light of collateral consequences: Does age matter?," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-11.
    20. Kick, Markus & Littich, Martina, 2015. "Brand and Reputation as Quality Signals on Regulated Markets," EconStor Preprints 182503, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.

    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:33:y:2013:i:1:p:37-47. 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.