IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i3p283-292.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Doctors’ Attitudes to Patient Question Asking, Patient-Generated Question Lists, and Question Prompt Lists: A Qualitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Marguerite Clare Tracy

    (ASK-GP Centre for Research Excellence, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

  • Danielle Maree Muscat

    (Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

  • Heather L. Shepherd

    (Susan Wakil Sydney Nursing School, Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia))

  • Lyndal Jane Trevena

    (ASK-GP Centre for Research Excellence, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

Abstract

Background Participation by patients in their own health care improves quality and safety. Question prompt lists (QPLs) can improve participation, particularly with doctors’ endorsement. Few data have explored doctors’ attitudes on these tools. We sought the experiences and attitudes of general practitioners and other specialists toward patient question asking and QPLs in their practice. Methods In-depth, semistructured interviews and focus groups with purposively selected Australian doctors were conducted. Interview guides were used to explore doctors’ experiences of patient question asking, patients’ lists, and a sample QPL created using an Australian government-funded online tool, “Question Builder.†Recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analyzed thematically using the method by Braun and Clarke. Results Focus groups with 3 to 9 participants and a further 17 individual interviews were conducted. There was a total of 40 participants, 23 general practitioners and 17 other specialists (e.g., physicians, surgeons, pediatricians). Our analysis was summarized into several themes. 1) The doctors expected, encouraged, and had significant experience of patient question asking and patients’ lists. They described many barriers for patients and their efforts to ensure patients had the information they needed. 2) The doctors felt responsible for creating an environment conducive to patient question asking, the delivery of answers, having strategies for unanswered questions, and balancing the agendas of both parties in the consultation. 3) Structured QPLs that prepared patients and facilitated the consultation agenda were viewed positively. The degree of time pressures participating doctors experienced in their context had a strong influence on how they responded to the sample QPL. Conclusion Doctors in this study expected patients to ask questions and endorsed the benefits of QPLs. However, there were more diverse views about the feasibility of implementing them in practice. Designing QPLs to fit within current workflows, via more succinct and tailored designs, may result in wider doctor acceptance and endorsement, hence maximizing the benefits of QPLs with improved patient participation and patient safety.

Suggested Citation

  • Marguerite Clare Tracy & Danielle Maree Muscat & Heather L. Shepherd & Lyndal Jane Trevena, 2022. "Doctors’ Attitudes to Patient Question Asking, Patient-Generated Question Lists, and Question Prompt Lists: A Qualitative Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 283-292, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:283-292
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211029579
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211029579
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211029579?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
    ---><---

    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:42:y:2022:i:3:p:283-292. 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: 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.