Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

When should you involve patients in treatment decisions?

Angela Coulter
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (543): 771-772.
Angela Coulter
Picker Institute Europe, Oxford
Roles: Chief Executive
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Three papers in this issue of BJGP call on doctors to adapt their practice styles to encourage more active patient engagement. Greaves and Campbell make a strong case for supporting self-care,1 while Bryant et al2 and Cox et al3 tackle the issue of how to involve patients in treatment decisions. There is an ethical, political, and scientific basis for moving in this direction, but the practical implications are complex.

There is much evidence that engaging patients in treatment decisions and supporting their efforts at self-care can lead to beneficial outcomes.4,5 Patients who are active participants in a shared decision-making process have a better knowledge of treatment options and more realistic perceptions of likely treatment effects. The resulting treatment choices are more likely to concur with their preferences and attitudes to risk.6 Actively engaged patients are also more likely to adhere to treatment recommendations, and less likely to select expensive procedures.7,8 However, patients' desire to play an active role in decision making varies, and, according to Cox et al, GPs are not very good at predicting what role patients want to play.3 What should be done about this problem?

Two possible solutions present themselves: asking patients explicitly whether they want to be involved in deciding how to manage their condition and adapting your decision-making style accordingly; or ignoring patients' initial inclinations and actively encouraging them to get involved because it's good for them to do so.

When choosing a treatment or preventive procedure, the aim is to select options that increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and minimise the chance of undesired consequences. Since there are often multiple options for treating a problem and the benefit/harm ratios are frequently uncertain or marginal, the best choice depends on how an individual patient values the potential benefits and harms of the alternatives.

The desire for participation has been found to vary according to age, educational status, disease severity, nationality, and ethnic origin, but these factors explain only part of the variance in individual preferences.4 None of these observable characteristics is a reliable predictor of what the individual patient wants. The only reliable way to find out patients' preferred role is to ask them directly, but their responses may be influenced by previous experience. Some patients may assume a passive role because they have never been encouraged to participate and remain unaware of the potential for doing so. Others may simply feel it is impolite to imply that the doctor doesn't necessarily know best.

For true shared decision making to take place patients must be given sufficient and appropriate information, including detailed explanations about their condition, treatment options, outcomes, and uncertainties. The doctor must have the scientific facts at his or her fingertips, must be skilled in risk communication, and must check that the patient has understood the information and can assess its implications. A number of evidence-based patient decision aids have been developed to assist in this process (http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/). However, this can be quite a lot to take and some patients may prefer not to receive this information or find it difficult to absorb and understand.

It is tempting to conclude that the information-giving process could be short-circuited if you could determine at the outset that the patient didn't want to be involved in the decision. The problem is that it doesn't make much sense to ask patients to indicate their preferred role in decision making before they have been informed about the nature of the choices they face. Also, many patients do want extensive information and a chance to express their preferences, even if they decide to delegate decision making to the doctor.

Currently, many patients expect to be actively involved in all decisions that affect them, but the evidence suggests that shared decision making is not the norm.9,10 Doctors often fail to explore patients' values and preferences and there are significant gaps between patients' desire for involvement and their experiences. In a national survey of general practice patients' experience carried out in England in 2006, 42% of responders said they would have liked more information about medicine side effects and 45% indicated that they had not had sufficient involvement in choosing their medication.11

Clinicians in the UK appear to be more reluctant to give their patients a say in treatment decisions than those in other developed countries.12 This may be because they judge that their patients do not welcome it, but deference to professional authority is rapidly giving way to a desire for a more equal relationship and it is important that practice keeps up with, and indeed embraces, these changed expectations.

There is considerable debate about when, and to what extent, patients should be actively encouraged to participate in treatment decisions. Many advocates of shared decision making suggest it should be restricted to preference-sensitive decisions, that is, those where it is generally agreed that the patient's values should guide the choice. Examples include choice of contraceptive method; hormone replacement therapy to control menopausal symptoms; mastectomy versus lumpectomy for breast cancer; and surgery, drug therapy or watchful waiting for menorrhagia or benign prostatic hypertrophy. This school of thought sees shared decision making as the best approach in situations of uncertainty when two or more clinically reasonable alternatives exist. But even in these cases, some would argue, if patients have indicated that they prefer the doctor to make the decision this must be respected.

Others have suggested that obtaining informed consent requires doctors to give patients full information in all cases of significant risk, even if there is only one treatment possibility. After all, there is still a decision to be made because the patient has to choose between two courses of action: to accept or reject the treatment. McNutt argued that doctors should never make choices for patients;13 instead, they should play the role of navigator, communicating risk and outcome probabilities and helping patients to make informed decisions for themselves.

The latest version of Good Medical Practice says doctors should listen to patients and respect their preferences, give patients the information they want or need in a way they can understand, and respect patients' right to reach decisions with the doctor about their treatment and care.14 This does not imply you should force patients to take responsibility for decision making against their will, but it does suggest that you should make serious efforts to provide information about the treatment or management options, explain it, elicit their preferences, and support them in weighing up the alternatives unless they tell you they don't want to be involved. How far you should go in persuading them to play an active role if they are hesitant about doing so, must remain a matter for debate.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2007.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Greaves CJ,
    2. Campbell JL
    (2007) Supporting self-care in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 57(543):814–821.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Bryant LD,
    2. Bown N,
    3. Bekker HL,
    4. House A
    (2007) The lure of ‘patient choice’ Br J Gen Pract 57(543):822–826.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Cox K,
    2. Britten N,
    3. Hooper R,
    4. White P
    (2007) Patients' involvement in decisions about medicines: GPs' perceptions of their preferences. Br J Gen Pract 57(543):777–784.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Coulter A,
    2. Ellins J
    (2006) Patient-focused interventions: a review of the evidence (The Health Foundation, London).
  5. ↵
    1. Coulter A,
    2. Ellins J
    (2007) Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating and involving patients. BMJ 335:24–27.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. O'Connor AM,
    2. Stacey D,
    3. Entwistle V,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD001431.
  7. ↵
    1. Stevenson FA,
    2. Cox K,
    3. Britten N,
    4. Dundar Y
    (2004) A systematic review of the research on communication between patients and health care professionals about medicines: the consequences for concordance. Health Expect 7(3):235–245.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Kennedy ADM,
    2. Sculpher MJ,
    3. Coulter A,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Effects of decision aids for menorrhagia on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs. JAMA 288:2701–2708.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Britten N,
    2. Stevenson FA,
    3. Barry CA,
    4. et al.
    (2000) Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study. BMJ 320(7233):484–488.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Stevenson FA,
    2. Barry CA,
    3. Britten N,
    4. et al.
    (2000) Doctor–patient communication about drugs: the evidence for shared decision making. Soc Sci Med 50(6):829–840.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Picker Institute Europe
    (2007) National survey of local health services 2006 (Department of Health, London).
  12. ↵
    1. Coulter A
    (2006) Engaging patients in their healthcare: how is the UK doing relative to other countries? (Picker Institute Europe, Oxford).
  13. ↵
    1. McNutt RA
    (2004) Shared medical decision making: problems, process, progress. JAMA 292(20):2516–2518.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. General Medical Council
    (2006) Good medical practice (GMC, London).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 57 (543)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 57, Issue 543
October 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
When should you involve patients in treatment decisions?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
When should you involve patients in treatment decisions?
Angela Coulter
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (543): 771-772.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
When should you involve patients in treatment decisions?
Angela Coulter
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (543): 771-772.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Remote by default general practice: must we, should we, dare we?
  • Learning disability registers: known unknowns and unknown unknowns
  • Charging for NHS care and its impact on maternal health
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242