BMJ  2003;327:841 (11 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7419.841

Primary care

Factors involved in deciding to start preventive treatment: qualitative study of clinicians' and lay people's attitudes

¹ Department of Public Health, Central Liverpool Primary Care Trust, Hamilton House, Liverpool L3 6AL, ² Health and Community Care Research Unit, Thompson Yates Building, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB

Abstract

Objectives To explore the views of clinicians and lay people about the minimum benefit needed to justify drug treatment to prevent heart attacks, and to explore the rationale behind treatment decisions.

Design Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.

Participants 4 general practitioners, 4 practice nurses, and 18 lay people.

Setting 8 general practices and 6 community settings across Liverpool.

Results Participants varied widely in the minimum acceptable benefits chosen. Most people found the concepts difficult initially, and few appreciated that increased length of treatment should increase absolute benefits. Lay people usually wanted to make decisions for themselves, and clinicians supported this. Participants wanted to consider adverse effects and costs of treatment. Dislike of drug taking was common, and many people preferred lifestyle change to an imperfect treatment. Quality of life and personal views were more important than an individual's age.

Conclusions Evidence based guidelines make assumptions about people's preferences, and, by using 10 year estimates of risk, inflate the apparent benefits of treatment. It is unlikely that guidelines could incorporate the wide range of people's preferences, and true dialogue is necessary between clinicians and patients before starting long term preventive treatment.

Introduction

It is becoming accepted that patients' preferences and values should be explicitly incorporated into decisions about treatments, but the rationale behind decisions is poorly understood.^{1 2} Most studies have examined groups of patients who are taking drugs, so excluding the views of those who have declined treatment,^{3 4} and how general practitioners' beliefs might influence prescribing decisions has not been explored.²

The decision to treat an asymptomatic risk factor involves making a value judgment as to when the expected benefits justify expected harms.⁵ In making such a choice, patients' values are at least as valid as professionals'.² Lipid lowering and blood pressure lowering drugs reduce the risk of ischaemic cardiovascular events, and current UK guidelines arbitrarily recommend treatment for those whose 10 year risk of coronary heart disease is at least 30%.^{6 7} Assuming a relative risk reduction of about a third, this equates to an absolute benefit of about 10% over 10 years (or 5% over five years), which means that 90% of patients will take drugs for 10 years with no benefit to themselves.

We explored the views of primary care clinicians and lay people about the minimum benefit they thought would justify drug treatment to prevent heart attacks. Doctors, nurses, and lay people are likely to have different perceptions, values, and levels of knowledge when making treatment decisions, and doctors tend to have more power within the clinical relationship.⁸ This can result in doctors unwittingly excluding patients' preferences from treatment decisions. We used the same scenario to elicit responses from all groups and to learn about the factors influencing preferences for preventive treatment.

Participants and methods

Health professionals
We recruited four doctors from a randomised list of general practitioners in Liverpool, and four practice nurses from the practices of the next four general practitioners on the same list. No participants were known to the researcher (DKL), and all worked at different practices across Liverpool.

Lay people
We recruited 18 lay people in Liverpool—five from meetings of the British Cardiac Support Group, six from lunch clubs run by Age Concern, six from a course run by a Tenants' Association, and two from a university department. Participants were told that the interviewer (DKL) was a researcher from public health, so that they would feel able to comment freely. Sample size was pragmatic, but we recruited lay people until no new themes emerged.

Interview
Participants read an information sheet and and then took part in a confidential, face to face interview. They were presented with a hypothetical drug to prevent heart attacks, and asked for their views on the minimum benefit needed to justify people taking the drug, and the reasons for their choices (see box 1). It was stressed that there were no right or wrong answers. Interviews lasted 15-30 minutes and were audiotaped and later transcribed verbatim for thematic analysis of content. Key findings were discussed by all authors.

Box 1: Scenario presented to participants and prompts used during interview Scenario "I would like you to think about a drug, a tablet, which can prevent heart attacks. It is not perfect in that it does not prevent them completely. What that means is that if, say, 100 or 1000 people take the tablets every day for five years, then some will be saved from a heart attack—they would have had a heart attack without the tablet, but the tablet has prevented it. Some will have a heart attack anyway, even though they take the tablet. And the rest will not have a heart attack, but would never have had one anyway even without the tablets. So the ones who are saved from a heart attack will have been helped by the drug. The rest would have been just the same if they had not taken the tablets at all. The problem is no one can say exactly who will be better and who will not, so they all had to take the tablets. [clarify] "What I want to know is—of, say, 100 similar people, all taking the drug for five years, how many have to be saved from a heart attack for it to be worth while all of them taking the drug every day?" Prompts used in all interviews "Why did you choose that number and not, say, one a bit higher [or lower]?" "How about if everybody has to take the tablet for 10 years instead of five? Would that make any difference?" "Do you think it makes any difference how old the people taking the tablets are? How would that change your answer?" "Is there anything else about the people taking the tablets which might alter your answer?" "Let's say that the tablets are mostly safe, but that you have to have a blood test at least every year and that the long term side effects are not known" At the end of interview "Thank you. Would you still choose the same number now as you did at the beginning?" [If someone said that one person benefiting out of 100 would be worth while] "OK. Let's say that 1000 people have to take it every day for just one to be better. Would that be worth it?" [increasing the number until they said that it would not be worth it]

Results

The table describes the participants' background characteristics.

Understanding the scenario
Most participants, including the health professionals, found the concepts difficult to grasp at first and gave different numerical answers through the interview, some of which were self contradictory. For example, one doctor changed the minimum absolute benefit from 20% to 5% without seeming to realise. All the doctors, half the nurses, and two of the 18 lay people seemed confident of their choice. Three clinicians initially said that a third should benefit from the drug because there were three categories of patients in the scenario. Some balanced an ideal against an acceptable benefit: one lay person (lay interview 10) wanted 99% of people to benefit but also thought that any benefit at all was worth while.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Summary of participants' characteristics

 

Minimum benefits chosen
Overall, doctors chose lower minimum absolute benefits (5%-10%) than nurses (10%-25%). Some lay people had high expectations of treatment, with minimum benefits varying from 10% to 99%. One doctor, two nurses, and seven lay people felt that any benefit would justify a large number of people taking treatment, even up to a million treated for one to benefit, although many required the treatment to be guaranteed cost free and risk free.

Benefits over time
Even those who gave numerically consistent answers usually wanted the same benefit over 10 years as over five; just one doctor, one nurse, and one lay person stated that the benefit should be greater if the drug was taken for a longer time. Guidelines use 10 year estimates of risk and benefit, although they are based on treatment trials usually lasting five years.^{9 10} Absolute benefit roughly doubles over double the time, but almost nobody we interviewed appreciated this. Rather, 10 and five years were viewed as "a long time."

Shared decision making
Most lay people wanted to make decisions for themselves, based on information provided by health professionals. One thought that most people aged over 60 years, like herself, would not want treatment but that "they should be given a chance" (lay interview 1). This view was supported by clinicians (three doctors and three nurses), who wanted to help patients make their own decisions, but one doctor acknowledged that professional values might influence patient choices: "It depends on the way you sell it" (general practitioner 1).

Only two lay people wanted health professionals to make the decision.

Side effects and guaranteed effectiveness
All of the doctors, half of the nurses, and five of the lay people wanted to know about side effects before making a decision about the benefit required. One lay person would not take a new treatment if the risk of side effects was unknown; some said they would stop taking tablets if they noticed any side effects, whereas others were happy to tolerate mild inconvenience if this were balanced with greater effectiveness. Six lay people wanted a perfect drug—either that there should be no possible adverse effects, or that it should definitely prevent all heart attacks. Some felt that only those patients certain to suffer a heart attack should take preventive treatment.

Cost
Cost of the treatment was mentioned spontaneously by all of the doctors, three of the nurses, and a third of the lay people; they felt it was inappropriate to choose the minimum acceptable benefit without considering costs. One person balanced the opportunity costs of treatment: "Why go on giving me these pills for a dubious quality of life, when... the same money spent on, I don't know, on reducing teenage pregnancy could have an enormous impact on 60 years of somebody's life? The best you can do for me is to give me an extra three or four years at 85; well I don't rate that as highly as improving, say, child nutrition" (lay interview 18).

Box 2: Participants' views on pill taking and lifestyle Pill taking "The ethos of taking tablets I find difficult"—Nurse 2 "Last time I went in hospital they said, `You've got to take these. There's four boxes there; take one every morning.' What they're for, God only knows. So... I stopped them"—Lay interview 9 Lifestyle "Preventative things other than taking pills are likely to be effective and cheaper—you know, like walking the dog, like running up the stairs, and not eating fat and not smoking... People who don't want to have heart attacks, I think, know what they have to do... and I certainly wouldn't give the pill to anybody who smoked, particularly if it was expensive—if they smoked, drank more than, say, a little, and took no exercise"—Lay interview 18 "I just found it really strange... there's this man prepared to take a statin that could damage his liver, and he's still gaily having bacon butties, you know, fried in lard"—Nurse 2

Pill taking (see box 2)
Seven lay people did not like the idea of medication—for example, "Tablets are a terrible thing" (lay interview 9)—but one person was not bothered by pill taking. Others were reluctant to take a drug without understanding its purpose. Three of the nurses and one doctor commented that patients or they themselves disliked medication, and half of the clinicians pointed out that there was no point prescribing drugs that would not be consumed.

Lifestyle (see box 2)
Three of the practice nurses found it frustrating to give drugs to people who were not prepared to adopt a healthier lifestyle, although they would not withhold treatment. Some lay people made similar comments, and two suggested that people who refused to alter their lifestyle (such as by stopping smoking) should not receive preventive treatment from the NHS. Many people we interviewed said they would prefer lifestyle change to an imperfect treatment.

Labelling
One lay person described the detrimental effect on the family of labelling someone with an illness: "If it's your mother or father, we know they have got something that they are taking the tablet for, so it is making us wary and more watchful of them" (lay interview 12).

Age
Opinion was divided on the relevance of pill takers' age. One doctor, two nurses, and eight lay people said that age would not influence a person's choice, but their expected quality of life should always be taken into account. One lay person felt her own quality of life did not justify the treatment, but continued to take it on the advice of her doctor. Nine others felt that the benefit should be greater to justify treatment with increasing age. Clinicians' reasons for this included that a heart attack when young was more significant and that older people were likely to die of other causes before benefiting from treatment. Lay reasons included that, over a certain age, people would not want to be bothered with this type of thing (two included themselves) or that older people could not cope with side effects, as well as that older people would die before benefiting.

Discussion

Many of the preferences expressed by the clinicians and lay people in this study are at odds with recommendations in guidelines. The doctors made decisions more confidently than others but were not necessarily more consistent or logical. All our respondents found it difficult to discuss benefits occurring in 10 years' time; by using 10 year estimates, guidelines may artificially inflate the benefit of treatment (halving the number need to treat), and skew the opinions of clinicians and patients. In addition, health professionals often accept smaller benefits (larger numbers needed to treat) from preventive treatment than those being treated expect, though a few patients opt for treatment even when there is no anticipated benefit.^11-14

In the concordant model of prescribing, doctors present the scientific evidence and elicit patients' views; patients consider the information and voice their preferences.² One effect may be that people choose not to take treatment.^{4 15 16} Many patients want to be involved in decision making, but not all.^{1 17} Such negotiations are believed to lead to more realistic and sustainable treatment decisions.⁵ Unfortunately, in practice doctors may mistakenly think they know what patients' preferences are and many prescribing decisions are not shared.^{16 18}

Our study confirms the finding that many people are averse to taking drugs unless absolutely necessary.¹⁸ Even patients taking preventive treatment may feel that drugs are best avoided, but on balance choose to take them, and some patients we interviewed were ambivalent about their own treatment.³

These findings represent the views of a small number of general practitioners, nurses, and lay people using a hypothetical scenario rather than actual treatment decisions. It is possible that an alternative scenario, or the same one presented differently, would have elicited different responses.

Conclusions
Both clinicians and lay people in this study found it difficult to make logical decisions about preventive treatment, but most wanted to be involved in determining their own treatment. Many people would prefer lifestyle change to medication. Despite the political reluctance to discuss rationing and prioritising, we found a general acceptance that resources are finite and should be targeted where they are most effective.

There is a danger that increased pressure on general practitioners to prescribe some drugs may distort practice and marginalise patients' preferences. People's values are not predictable, and their wide range of preferences makes consensus unlikely. We believe guidelines should reflect the importance of true dialogue between clinicians and patients before embarking on lifelong preventive treatment.

What is already known on this topic Most people want to be involved in decisions about their medical treatment, but many prescribing decisions are not shared. Patients' preferences are often different to those of clinicians, and may lead to choices contrary to guidelines Little is known about the factors which clinicians or lay people use to decide whether to start preventive treatment Guidelines are based on arbitrary judgments of what benefit is worthwhile What this study adds Understanding the numerical basis for decisions about preventive treatment is difficult for both clinicians and lay people. Participants in this study wished to consider costs before deciding when people should start treatment Many people dislike the concept of taking pills every day, and might choose lifestyle change rather than medication, if possible. Some people want only a perfect treatment, with guaranteed effectiveness and no possible adverse effects The diversity of beliefs makes consensus unlikely, and guidelines should reflect this. True dialogue is required if patients' preferences are to be used to make decisions

---

This is an abridged version; the full version is on bmj.com

We thank the participants, who gave up their time to be interviewed, and Fiona Johnstone who advised on recruitment.

Contributors: See bmj.com

Funding: DKL was funded by a North West Regional Health Authority Public Health Fellowship.

Competing interests: None declared.

Ethical approval: The study was approved by the local research ethics committee.

References

1. Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH. Clinical expertise in the era of evidence-based medicine and patient choice. Evid Based Med 2002;7: 36-8.[Free Full Text]
2. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Working Party. From compliance to concordance: achieving shared goals in medicine taking. London: Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, Merck, Sharp and Dohme, 1997.
3. Benson J, Britten N. Patients' decisions about whether or not to take antihypertensive drugs: qualitative study. BMJ 2002;325: 873-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Svensson S, Kjellgren KI, Ahlner J, Saljo R. Reasons for adherence with antihypertensive medication. Int J Cardiol 2000;76: 157-63.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
5. Barber N. What constitutes good prescribing? BMJ 1995;310: 923-5.[Free Full Text]
6. British Cardiac Society, British Hyperlipidaemia Association, British Hypertension Society, endorsed by the British Diabetic Association. Joint British recommendations on prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Heart 1998;80(suppl 2): S1-29.
7. Department of Health. National service framework for coronary heart disease. London: DoH; 2000.
8. Lupton D. Perspectives on power, communication and the medical encounter: implications for nursing theory and practice. Nurs Inq 1995;2: 157-63.[Medline]
9. British Cardiac Society, British Hyperlipidaemia Association, British Hypertension Society, endorsed by the British Diabetic Association. Joint British recommendations on prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Heart 1998;80(suppl 2): S1-29.
10. Department of Health. National service framework for coronary heart disease. London: DoH; 2000.
11. Lewis DK, Barton S. Who decides when to start preventive treatment? A questionnaire survey to compare the views of different population subgroups. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57: 241-2.[Free Full Text]
12. Steel N. Thresholds for taking antihypertensive drugs in different professional and lay groups: questionnaire survey. BMJ 2000;320: 1446-7.[Free Full Text]
13. Protheroe J, Fahey T, Montgomery TJ. The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis. BMJ 2000;320: 1380-4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. McAlister FA, O'Connor AM, Wells G, Grover S, Laupacis A. When should hypertension be treated? The different perspectives of Canadian family physicians and patients. Can Med Assoc J 2000;163: 403-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Montgomery AA, Harding J, Fahey T. Shared decision making in hypertension: the impact of patient preferences on treatment choice. Fam Pract 2001;18: 309-13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Kjellgren KI, Ahlner J, Saljo R. Taking antihypertensive medication—controlling or co-operating with patients? Int J Cardiol 1995;47: 257-68.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
17. McKinstry B. Do patients wish to be involved in decision making in the consultation? A cross sectional survey with video vignettes. BMJ 2000;321: 867-71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Britten N, Stevenson FA, Barry CA, Barber N, Bradley CP. Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study. BMJ 2000;320: 484-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(Accepted July 28, 2003)

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Preventive drug treatment decisions are individualised
BMJ 2003 327: 0. [Full Text]

A small study, but the results ring true

Robert Johnstone
BMJ 2003 327: 844-845. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Murray, M. A., Wilson, K., Kryworuchko, J., Stacey, D., O'Connor, A. (2009). Nurses' Perceptions of Factors Influencing Patient Decision Support for Place of Care at the End of Life. AM J HOSP PALLIAT CARE 26: 254-263 [Abstract]  
• Tjia, J., Givens, J. L., Karlawish, J. H., Okoli-Umeweni, A., Barg, F. K. (2008). Beneath the surface: discovering the unvoiced concerns of older adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Health Educ Res 23: 40-52 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• van der Weijden, T., van Steenkiste, B., Stoffers, H.E.J.H., Timmermans, D.R.M., Grol, R. (2007). Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in General Practice: Mismatch between Cardiovascular Risk and Patients' Risk Perceptions. Med Decis Making 27: 754-761 [Abstract]  
• McCormack, J. P., Loewen, P. (2007). Adding "value" to clinical practice guidelines. cfp 53: 1326-1327 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Schedlbauer, A, Schroeder, K, Fahey, T (2007). How can adherence to lipid-lowering medication be improved? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Fam Pract 24: 380-387 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Griffiths, F., Green, E., Tsouroufli, M. (2005). The nature of medical evidence and its inherent uncertainty for the clinical consultation: qualitative study. BMJ 330: 511- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• McCray, A. T. (2005). Promoting Health Literacy. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 12: 152-163 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Tinetti, M. E., Bogardus, S. T. Jr., Agostini, J. V. (2004). Potential Pitfalls of Disease-Specific Guidelines for Patients with Multiple Conditions. NEJM 351: 2870-2874 [Full text]  
• Werner, P. (2004). Lay person's recommendations about interventions for Alzheimer's disease: Correlates and relationship to help-seeking behavior. AM J ALZHEIMERS DIS OTHER DEMEN 19: 309-315 [Abstract]  
• (2004). Other articles noted: 06 Feb 2004 to 16 Apr 2004. Evid. Based Nurs. 7: e3-e3 [Full text]  
• Lewis, D. K, Robinson, J., Wilkinson, E. (2004). Factors involved in deciding to start preventive treatment: qualitative study of clinicians' and lay people's attitudes. Heart 90: 180-180 [Full text]  
• Jones, G. (2003). Prescribing and taking medicines. BMJ 327: 819-819 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

First of all, an efficacious physical examination , e.g., with the aid of Biophysical Semeiotics.

Sergio Stagnaro
bmj.com, 10 Oct 2003 [Full text]

Striving not to prescribe

Felicity J Fay
bmj.com, 13 Oct 2003 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>