General Practice

Do patients wish to be involved in decision making in the consultation? A cross sectional survey with video vignettes

Brian McKinstry, principal in general practice. 

Ashgrove Health Centre, Blackburn, West Lothian EH47 7LL

brian.mckinstry{at}ed.ac.uk

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

Objective: To determine patients' preferences for a shared or directed style of consultation in the decision making part of the general practice consultation.
Design: Structured interview, with video vignettes of acted consultations.
Setting: 5 practices in Lothian, Scotland.
Participants: 410 patients (adults and adults accompanying children) attending surgery appointments.
Main outcome measures: Preference for shared or directed form of video vignette for five different presenting conditions.
Results: Patients varied in their preference for involvement in decision making in the consultation. Under multiple regression analysis, patients' preference was found to be independently predicted by the problem viewed (patients presented with physical problems preferred a directed approach), patients' age (patients aged 61 or older were more likely to prefer the directed approach), social class (social classes I and II were more likely to prefer the shared approach), and smoking status (smokers more likely to prefer the shared approach). Those patients who were able to answer (or who thought their doctor's style similar to those in the vignettes) were more likely to describe their own doctor's style as similar to their preferred style. No major association in preference was found with sex, frequency of attendance, or perceived chronic ill health.
Conclusion: Patients may vary in their desire for involvement in decision making in consultations. Although this variation seems to depend on the presenting problem, age, social class, and smoking status, these associations are not absolute, with large minorities in each group. Doctors need the skills, knowledge of their patients, and the time to determine on which occasions, with which illnesses, and at which level their patients wish to be involved in decision making.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

The evidence that patients are more satisfied and more likely to comply with treatment when doctors allow them to express their concerns and ideas in the consultation is powerful.^1-5 Some authors have suggested that patients should routinely be involved in decision making in consultations, ^{3 6 7} and this concept has been accepted by those involved in the training of general practitioners.⁸ There is, however, little evidence that patients find shared decision making acceptable.⁹ I aimed to determine patients' preferences for participation in decision making in consultations for different types of medical problems.

	Participants and methods

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

Video vignettes
Pairs of video vignettes of five common scenarios in consultations were made, one in a style that involved the patient in deciding on management (shared approach), and one in a style where the doctor largely decided management (directed approach). The video covered only the decision making part of the consultation, the history having been described in a brief introduction. The vignettes represented five presenting problems: serious acute (bleeding mole), minor acute (sprained calf), chronic (unresponsive rheumatoid arthritis), mental health (depression), and lifestyle advice (smoking).

Power calculation
Ethical approval was obtained for the study. I chose a sample size of 400 to enable detection of significant differences in the order of 15% in preferences between dichotomous groupings of the patients on the basis of other factors. Adult patients and adults accompanying children attending five Lothian general practices of varying demographies and list size were invited to take part. They were shown one of 10 video "couplets," comprising an introduction followed by two different versions, shared and directed, by one or other of the sets of actors. Patients who agreed to take part were shown the next in sequence from one of two tapes (one showing scenarios in reverse order). The tapes were viewed by up to four patients at any one time. Immediately after viewing the interviewer asked patients which version (shared or directed) they thought was best, which was most like their own doctor's style, and what they thought was the biggest difference between the versions. The patients' age, sex, history of chronic ill health, smoking status, frequency of attendance at surgery, age of leaving full time education, and social class were recorded.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

Overall, 410 of 631 patients (65%) who were approached took part. Patients often apologised for not being able to take part, citing pressure of time. No data were available on those patients who did not take part. Table 1 lists the characteristics of the sample.

This survey contained a higher ratio of women than men (2.6:1) than has been found in other studies of attendees at general practices.¹⁰ This is probably because women usually accompanied children. For analysis, patients were divided into those who had attended more than six times and those who had attended less than six times in the past year, as the average number of attendances stated by patients was 5.8 per year. Analysis showed that neither the order of presentation of the scenarios nor the actor affected the results.

Patients' preferences for shared or directed versions of scenarios were significantly associated with the patients' age, smoking status, and social class, the scenario, and their perception of their own doctor as being one who shared or directed. Multiple logistic regression showed that these variables were also independent predictors of preference (table 1). Although patients who left full time education aged less than 17 were significantly less likely to prefer the shared scenarios (78/225 (35%) versus 85/185 (46%), 95% confidence interval for odds ratio for sharing 0.41 to 0.95), this was not found to be an independent predictor. Although highly significant, the variable of "own doctor's style" was not included in the regression model because it was poorly answered. Patients who saw multiple doctors could not attribute a style to their own doctor. Generally, patients described their own doctor as having the same style as their preferred style (table 2). No significant associations were found with sex, frequency of attendance, or stated chronic ill health. Patients clearly preferred the directed approach for all the scenarios except those for depression and smoking advice. There was no significant evidence that the strength of age, social class, or smoking effects differed between the five scenarios. Smoking status was initially included because it was thought it might be a factor in the smoking advice scenario (smokers were more likely to prefer the shared version (15/19 (79.0%) versus 21/55 (38.2%), 95% confidence for odds ratio 1.65 to 28.64)); however, it was found to be a significant factor in all the scenarios.

Although chronic ill health was not found to be a significant factor, it was confounded by being more frequent in elderly patients, a group that had independently been shown to prefer the directed approach. Further analysis of younger (less than 61 years), chronically ill patients showed that they were more likely than other younger patients to prefer shared consultations, but this fell short of significance (35/68 (51.5%) versus 104/257 (40.5%), 95% confidence interval for odds ratio 0.88 to 2.76). Most patients saw the main difference between the versions of the scenarios as being one of direction or control.

Patients were usually sure about their decision and often vocal in justifying their choice. What was considered "decisive" and "sharing the patient's viewpoint" by some was considered "overbearing" and "shilly-shallying" by others. Only in the depression scenario was it obvious that some people (still a minority) were uncertain about which to choose.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

Watching videos of consultations is not the same as experiencing them as a patient. Although most patients have experienced an acute injury, fewer experience an illness such as rheumatoid arthritis, a scenario included to portray patients who are "expert in their illness."⁷ It was clear from comments made by patients to me about this scenario that they viewed it as a complex medical problem of which they knew little, and they assumed that the patient was equally ignorant and should therefore follow the doctor's advice. Smokers had a notably different view from non-smokers on the smoking scenario, suggesting that personal experience might change a patient's view.

It is difficult to know if those taking part in the survey were different from those who did not. Although there were more women in the sample than men, no relation was found between sex and patients' preferences. The surgeries provided a spread of social classes and general practitioners. Patients with long term illness constituted 26% of the sample, which was comparable to other studies.¹⁰ Housebound patients, however, with whom doctors may have a stronger relationship, were excluded, and patients from Lothian may not be representative of the United Kingdom as a whole.

The study showed that a large number of patients preferred directed consultations when viewing the scenarios. This may mean that they still seek some direction from their doctor. Most studies of general practitioners' consultations show a strong degree of professional control. ^{11 12} As in this study, most patients' experience is probably of a doctor who adopts a directed approach in consultations.

Patients' preference for directed scenarios depended on the problem presented. This is in keeping with the theories of others. ^{13 14} As with my study, other researchers have shown that for psychological illness or general advice the directed approach was not associated with benefit, but this approach seemed more beneficial for physical problems.¹⁵ As in my study, questionnaire surveys in American hospitals found that those patients who were more ill than others preferred to delegate more to doctors. ^{16 17}

That most smokers, despite lower social class, preferred shared consultations was surprising. This may be because they have experienced more authoritarian approaches from doctors and have come to dislike such treatment generally.¹⁸ The increased preference by higher social classes for shared decision making is consistent with studies examining time spent by general practitioners and the quality of consultations with this group.^19-22

I found that older patients preferred a more directed style than younger patients. This has been found by others. ^{16 17} Older patients' experience of doctors in the past, recounted to me at the time of the study, was one of considerably more directiveness than today.

Some authors have suggested that patients tend to prefer what they know and are sceptical about what is new or unfamiliar.²³ The finding that patients preferred the style they attributed to their own doctor may be explained in this way but could be equally explained by patients selecting general practitioners with their preferred style.

Analysis of young patients who were chronically ill showed them to be numerically, but not significantly, more likely than other young patients to prefer shared consultations. A larger survey or one directed at chronically ill patients may be necessary to elucidate this.

In my study some patients preferred directiveness in certain circumstancesfor example, simple self limiting conditions and serious illness. In these circumstances some patients want the reassurance of certainty or possibly to avoid responsibility for a poor outcome.²⁴ When patients believe they may have more insight into the problem than their doctor, such as for depression or lifestyle, more patients prefer to help decide their management.

Conclusion
Although the case for a listening doctor who is open to the ideas of patients in the history taking part of the consultation is strong, patients may vary in their desire for sharing in the decision making part of the consultation. This variation in desire depends on the presenting problem but is also associated with the age, social class, and educational level of the patient. These associations are not absolute, with large minorities of each group holding opposite views to the majority. For some conditions patients clearly thought that their own views on management must be taken more into account. This seems to be true of mental health and lifestyle problems.

	Acknowledgments

This study was part of an MD thesis at the University of Edinburgh. I have had invaluable help from the university's Department of General Practice, in particular Mike Porter my supervisor, but also John Howie, Sally Wyke, Jane Hopton, and Don Thomson. I also thank Graham Buckley, Ruth Liddle, and Denis Pereira Gray for their support and constructive criticism, my actors Bill Patterson, Alison Sinclair, Sophie Pilgrim, and John Liddle, statistician Rob Elton, the Lothian Primary Care Research Network, and all the general practitioners in Lothian who let me interview their patients.

Contributors: Mike Porter and John Howie, Department of Community Health Sciences, Edinburgh University, will act as guarantors for the paper.

	Footnotes

Funding: Lothian Health funded the author's three month sabbatical during which the study was conducted.

Competing interests: None declared.

A description of the validation of the videos appears on the BMJ's website

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

1.	Stiles WB, Putman SM, Wolf MH, James SA. Interaction exchange structure and patient satisfaction with medical interviews. Med Care 1979; 17: 667-681[CrossRef][Medline].
2.	Roter D, Hall J. Physician interviewing style and medical information obtained from patients. J Gen Intern Med 1987; 2: 326.
3.	Heaton PB. Negotiation as an integral part of the physician's clinical reasoning. J Fam Pract 1981; 13: 845-848[Medline].
4.	Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Gibson ES, Hackett BC, Taylor DW, Roberts RS, et al. Randomised clinical trial of strategies for improving medication compliance in primary hypertension. Lancet 1975; i: 1205-1207.
5.	Stewart M, Brown JB, Weston WW. Patient-centred medicine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.
6.	Tuckett D, Boulton M, Olson C, Williams A. Meetings between experts. London: Tavistock, 1985.
7.	Brody D. The patient's role in clinical decision making. Ann Intern Med 1980; 93: 718-722.
8.	Pendleton D, Schofield T, Tate P, Havelock P. The consultation. An approach to learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984:97-103.
9.	Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2: 112-121[Medline].
10.	Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. General household survey. London: HMSO, 1991:150-160.
11.	Boulton M, Tuckett D, Olson C, Williams A. Social class and the general practice consultation. Sociol Health Illness 1986; 8: 323-350.
12.	Byrne PS, Long BEL. Doctors talking to patients. London: HMSO, 1980.
13.	Szasz TS, Hollender MC. A contribution to the philosophy of medicine: the basic models of the doctor-patient relationship. Arch Intern Med 1956; 97: 585-592[Abstract/Free Full Text].
14.	Botelho R. A negotiation model for the doctor-patient relationship. Fam Pract 1992; 9: 210-218[Abstract/Free Full Text].
15.	Savage R, Armstrong D. Effect of general practitioner's consulting style on patients' satisfaction: a controlled study. BMJ 1990; 301: 968-970.
16.	Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A, Moskowitz M. Measuring patients' desire for autonomy: decision making and information seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med 1988; 4: 23-30.
17.	Cassileth B, Zupkis R, Sutton-Smith K, March V. Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Ann Intern Med 1980; 92: 832-836.
18.	Prochaska JO, Di Clemente CC, Morcross JC. In search of how people change application to addictive behaviour. Am Psychol 1992; 44: 1102-1114[CrossRef].
19.	Buchan I. `Time and motion' in general practice. Practitioner 1978; 221: 298-301[Medline].
20.	Bain DJG. Patient knowledge and the content of the consultation in general practice. Med Educ 1982; 11: 347-350.
21.	Pendleton DA, Bochner S. The communication of medical information in general practice consultation as a function of patients' social class. Soc Sci Med {Med Psychol Med Sociol} 1980; 14a: 669-673.
22.	Cartwright A, O'Brien M. Social class variations in health care and in the nature of general practitioner consultations. Sociol Rev Monogr 1976; 22: 77-98.
23.	Porter M, MacIntyre S. What is, must be best: a research note on conservative or deferential responses to antenatal care provision. Soc Sci Med 1984; 11: 1197-1200.
24.	Shapiro J, Shapiro DH. The psychology of responsibility: some second thoughts on holistic medicine. N Engl J Med 1979; 295: 939-943[Medline].

(Accepted 5 July 2000)