IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i3p385-393.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Patients' Communication Behaviors Provide Insight into Their Preferences for Participation in Decision Making?

Author

Listed:
  • Pamela L. Hudak

    (Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto ON, Canada, M5B 1W8, hudakp@smh.toronto.on.ca)

  • Richard M. Frankel

    (Richard L. Roudebush Veteran's Administration Medical Centre, Indiana University, School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana)

  • Clarence Braddock III

    (Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California)

  • Rosane Nisenbaum

    (Centre for Research on Inner City Health, The Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada)

  • Paola Luca

    (School of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada)

  • Caitlin McKeever

    (Centre for Research on Inner City Health, The Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada)

  • Wendy Levinson

    (Department of Medicine, The Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada)

Abstract

Background. The Institute of Medicine report "Crossing the Quality Chasm'' encourages physicians to tailor their approaches to care according to each patient's individual preferences for participation in decision making. How physicians should determine these preferences is unclear. Objective. The objective of this study is to assess whether judgments of patient communication behaviors, either globally or individually, can yield insight into patient preferences for participation in decision making. Methods. Using questionnaire responses to 3 items about the desired level of participation in decision making from a communication study involving 886 audiotaped visits between older patients and surgeons, the authors purposively selected 25 patients who preferred a large role and 25 who preferred a small role in decision making. Two independent raters listened to the audiotapes and coded them for the presence of 7 communication behaviors (question asking, information behavior, initiating, statements of preference, processing, resistance, deference). On the basis of their listening and coding, raters judged patient preferences for participation in decision making. Results. Neither rater accurately judged preferences for participation in decision making beyond chance agreement (kappa statistics: rater 1 = 0.16, rater 2 = 0.20). Inter-rater reliability for the communication behaviors was also generally poor. Area-under-the-curve values for all communication behaviors hovered around 0.50, indicating that none of the behaviors had adequate power to discriminate between patients preferring large versus small roles. Conclusion. Patient preferences for participation in decision making cannot be reliably judged during routine visits based on judgments of patient communication behaviors. Engaging patients in a discussion of preferences for decision making may be the best way to determine the role each wants to play in any given decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Pamela L. Hudak & Richard M. Frankel & Clarence Braddock III & Rosane Nisenbaum & Paola Luca & Caitlin McKeever & Wendy Levinson, 2008. "Do Patients' Communication Behaviors Provide Insight into Their Preferences for Participation in Decision Making?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(3), pages 385-393, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:3:p:385-393
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07312712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07312712
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07312712?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. Street, Richard L., 1991. "Information-giving in medical consultations: The influence of patients' communicative styles and personal characteristics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 541-548, January.
    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. Lindy King & Ann Harrington & Ecushla Linedale & Elizabeth Tanner, 2018. "A mixed methods thematic review: Health‐related decision‐making by the older person," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1327-1343, April.
    2. Edi Karni & Moshe Leshno & Sivan Rapaport, 2014. "Helping patients and physicians reach individualized medical decisions: theory and application to prenatal diagnostic testing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 451-467, April.

    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. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    18. 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.
    19. K. Tiller & B. Meiser & C. Gaff & J. Kirk & T. Dudding & K.-A. Phillips & M. Friedlander & K. Tucker, 2006. "A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Aid for Women at Increased Risk of Ovarian Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 360-372, July.
    20. Yoko Ueno & Mayumi Kako & Mitsuko Ohira & Hitoshi Okamura, 2020. "Shared decision‐making for women facing an unplanned pregnancy: A qualitative study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 1186-1196, December.

    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:28:y:2008:i:3:p:385-393. 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.