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
. 2013;8(4):e60721.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060721. Epub 2013 Apr 2.

Decision-making in multiple sclerosis consultations in Italy: third observer and patient assessments

Erika Pietrolongo  1 , Andrea Giordano, Monica Kleinefeld, Paolo Confalonieri, Alessandra Lugaresi, Carla Tortorella, Maura Pugliatti, Davide Radice, Claudia Goss, Christoph Heesen, Alessandra Solari; AutoMS group
Collaborators, Affiliations

Decision-making in multiple sclerosis consultations in Italy: third observer and patient assessments

Erika Pietrolongo et al. PLoS One. 2013.

Abstract

Objective: To assess decision-making in multiple sclerosis (MS) from third observer and patient perspectives.

Method: Audio recordings of first-ever consultations with a participating physician (88 outpatients, 10 physicians) at four tertiary MS care clinics in Italy, were rated by a third observer using the Observing Patient Involvement in Shared Decision Making (OPTION) and by patients using the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS).

Results: Mean patient age was 37.5, 66% were women, 72% had MS, and 28% had possible MS or other disease. Mean PICS subscale scores (range 0 poor, 100 best possible) were 71.9 (SD 24.3) for "physician facilitation" (PICS-F); 74.6 (SD 22.9) for "patient information exchange" (PICS-I); and only 22.5 (SD 16.2) for "patient decision making" (PICS-DM). Mean OPTION total score (0 poor, 100 best possible) was 29.6 (SD 10.3). Poorest OPTION scores were found for items assessing "preferred patient approach to receiving information" and "preferred patient level of involvement." Highest scores were for "clinician drawing attention to identified problem", "indicating need for decision making," and "need to review the decision." Consultation time, woman physician, patient-physician gender concordance and PICS-F were associated with higher OPTION total score; older physician and second opinion consultation were associated with lower OPTION score.

Conclusions: In line with findings in other settings, our third observer findings indicated limited patient involvement abilities of MS physicians during first consultations. Patient perceptions of physician skills were better than third observers', although they correlated. Consultations with women physicians, and younger physicians, were associated with higher third observer and patient-based scores. Our findings reveal a need to empower Italian MS physicians with better communication and shared decision-making skills, and show in particular that attention to MS patient preferences for reception of information and involvement in health decisions, need to be improved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: PC has received speaker honoraria from Biogen Idec, and travel grants from Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis and Sanofi Aventis. AL was a board member for Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, and Merck Serono; she has received travel grants and honoraria from Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis and Teva. CT has received speaker honoraria from Bayer Shering, Biogen Idec, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis. CH has received financial support from Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono and Teva. AS was a board member for Biogen Idec and Novartis, and has received speaker honoraria from Genzyme and Merck Serono. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Frequency distribution of Observing Patient Involvement in Shared Decision Making (OPTION) total score (88 consultations).
The line is the normal density plot. The x axis shows the full range of possible scores (0–100).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Stewart M, Brown JB, Weston WW, Freeman TR (2003) Patient-Centred Medicine: Transforming the Clinical Method. 2nd ed. United Kingdom: Radcliffe Medical Press.
    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T (1997) Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 44: 681–692. - PubMed
    1. Coulter A (2006) Engaging patients in their healthcare. How is the UK doing relative to other countries? Oxford, UK: Picker Institute Europe.
    1. Legaré F, O’Connor AM, Graham ID, Wells GA, Tremblay S (2006) Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the agreement and the difference between patients’ and physicians’ decisional conflict. Med Decis Making 26: 373–390. - PubMed
    1. Joosten EAG, DeFuentes-Merilla L, de Weert GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CPF, et al. (2008) Systematic review of the effects of shared decision making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom 77: 219–226. - PubMed

Publication types