IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v56y2003i3p589-602.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What are the ingredients for a successful evidence-based patient choice consultation?: A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Ford, Sarah
  • Schofield, Theo
  • Hope, Tony

Abstract

The evidence-based patient choice (EBPC) approach is one of a number of newly emerging templates for medical encounters that advocate evidence-informed choice and shared decision-making. These models emphasise respect for patient preferences for involvement in health care decisions and advocate the sharing of good quality evidence-based information. In the medical consultation EBPC involves providing patients with evidence-based information in a way that facilitates their ability to make choices or decisions about their health care. Whereas the key principles of shared decision-making have been conceptualised, so far, no qualitative investigations have been undertaken to establish the key components of an EBPC consultation. Therefore, a series of semi-structured interviews were carried out with key informants to identify the elements and skills required for a successful EBPC consultation to occur. The interviews were conducted with purposively selected UK general practitioners (n=11), hospital doctors (n=10), practice nurses (n=5), academics (n=11) and lay people (n=8). Qualitative analysis of participants' responses was conducted using the constant comparative method. Six main themes emerged from the data, these were research evidence/medical information, the doctor-patient relationship, patient perspectives, decision-making processes, time issues and establishing the patient's problem. All respondents placed importance on doctors and patients being well informed and appraised of the latest available medical evidence. There was a general view that evidence-based information regarding diagnosis and treatment options should be shared with patients during a consultation. However, there were no suggestions as to how this might be achieved in practice. Participants' opinions relating to which model of decision-making should be adopted ranged from favouring an informed choice model, to the view that decision-making should be shared equally. Similarly, there was no clear view on how much guidance a doctor should offer a patient during decision-making concerning the most appropriate treatment option for that patient.

Suggested Citation

  • Ford, Sarah & Schofield, Theo & Hope, Tony, 2003. "What are the ingredients for a successful evidence-based patient choice consultation?: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 589-602, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:3:p:589-602
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(02)00056-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler & Franz-Werner Dippel & Christin Juhnke, 2018. "Treatment Preferences in Germany Differ Among Apheresis Patients with Severe Hypercholesterolemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 477-493, April.
    2. Poltorak, Mike & Leach, Melissa & Fairhead, James & Cassell, Jackie, 2005. "'MMR talk' and vaccination choices: An ethnographic study in Brighton," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 709-719, August.
    3. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    4. Bugge, Carol & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Watt, Ian S., 2006. "The significance for decision-making of information that is not exchanged by patients and health professionals during consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2065-2078, October.

    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:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:3:p:589-602. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.