Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2006 Dec;9(4):333-42.
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00413.x.

Has patients' involvement in the decision-making process changed over time?

Atie van den Brink-Muinen  1 , Sandra M van Dulmen, Hanneke C J M de Haes, Adriaan Ph Visser, François G Schellevis, Jozien M Bensing
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Has patients' involvement in the decision-making process changed over time?

Atie van den Brink-Muinen et al. Health Expect. 2006 Dec.

Abstract

Objective: To get insight into the changes over time of patients' involvement in the decision-making process, and into the factors contributing to patients' involvement and general practitioners' (GPs) communication related to the Medical Treatment Act (MTA) issues: information about treatment, other available treatments and side-effects; informed decision making; asking consent for treatment.

Background: Societal developments have changed the doctor-patient relationship recently. Informed decision making has become a central topic. Patients' informed consent was legalized by the MTA (1995).

Design: Data of two cross-sectional studies, the First (1987) and Second (2001) Dutch National Survey of General Practice, were compared.

Setting and participants: General practice consultations; 16 GPs and 442 patients in 1987; 142 GPs and 2784 patients in 2001.

Methods: Consultations were videotaped and rated using Roter's Interaction Analysis System and observer questionnaires; pre- and post-consultation patient questionnaires; and GP questionnaires. Descriptive analyses and multivariate, multilevel analysis were applied.

Main results: Most patients reported to have received the information they had considered as important prior to the consultation. There were discrepancies in involvement in treatment decisions and in giving information about other available treatments, side-effects and risks. GPs who were more affective and gave more information, more often involved their patients, especially younger patients, in decision making. In 2001, more informed decision making was observed and the GPs asked consent for a treatment more often, but they less often asked for the patients' understanding.

Conclusion: Patients' involvement in decision making has increased over time, but not in every respect. However, this does not apply for all patients, especially the older ones. It should be questioned whether they are willing or capable to be involved and if so, how they could be encouraged.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. McWhinney IR. Primary care: core values. Core values in a changing world. British Medical Journal, 1998; 13: 1807–1809. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jones R, Higgs R, De Angelis C, Prideaux D. Changing face of medical curricula. Lancet, 2001; 357: 699–703. - PubMed
    1. Bensing JM. Bridging the gap. The separate worlds of evidence‐based medicine and patient‐centered medicine. Patient Education and Counseling, 2000; 39: 17–25. - PubMed
    1. Visser A, Wislow L. From patient education to communication health care. Editorial. Patient Education and Counseling, 2003; 5: 227–228. - PubMed
    1. Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A et al The Option Scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision‐making tasks. Health Expectations, 2005; 8: 34–42. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types