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

Author:

Hudak Pamela L.1,Frankel Richard M.2,Braddock Clarence3,Nisenbaum Rosane4,Luca Paola5,McKeever Caitlin4,Levinson Wendy6

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto ON, Canada, M5B 1W8,

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

3. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California

4. 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

5. School of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

6. 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.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3