Research

Older patients and their GPs: shared decision making in enhancing trust

Joanne E Butterworth and John L Campbell
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (628): e709-e718. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X682297

Abstract

Background Older patients differ from younger patients in their perceptions of trust in doctors; their sense of shared decision making is particularly associated with their trust in the GP. Enhancing trust and improving shared decision making are thought to have positive health outcomes. Older patients are sometimes reported as being less frequently involved in decisions about their health care, however, and in having more unmet healthcare needs than younger patients.

Aim This study explored older patients’ trust in their GPs and their perceptions of shared decision making.

Design and setting Qualitative methods were used. Systematic sampling identified 20 participants, aged ≥65 years, from three GP surgeries in Devon, UK.

Method A constant comparative approach was applied to thematic analysis of transcribed interviews.

Results All participants valued feeling involved in decisions but differed regarding how they felt involved. Trust influenced preferences for shared decision making: a trusted GP ‘ally’, to competently manage participants’ increasing health-information requirements throughout the vulnerable ageing process, was important. Trust was affected by factors contributing to the facilitation of involvement. GP characteristics, communication skills, consultation duration, and continuity of care were common themes.

Conclusion Although limited geographically and subsequently by ethnic group, the present sample allows for reasonable transferability of the study to other UK populations. A range of factors are highlighted for consideration when planning primary healthcare delivery: to facilitate the optimal involvement of older patients in decisions about their health care, while enhancing their trust in the GP; to help minimise potential health inequalities for this patient group.

INTRODUCTION

Patients require trust as a prerequisite for engagement with complex organisations such as the primary healthcare system.1,2 Patients’ trust in their GPs may facilitate effective clinical encounters,3 and studies have identified health-related benefits of a trusting GP–patient relationship.4–6 Older patients place particular value on this trust.7 Factors affecting older patients’ perceptions of trust differ, however, from those of relevance among younger patients.6

Patient-centred care facilitates trust8–10 and is associated with improved health outcomes, including patient adherence with treatment advice, and satisfaction with health care.11–14 Historically, GPs have been poor at recognising individualised healthcare requirements for older patients.15 More recently, the importance of involving older patients, when identifying unmet healthcare needs, has been acknowledged.16 However, further research is warranted to provide practical guidance to clinicians.17

Shared decision making, as an ethical way to enhance patient autonomy, has been recommended as a key feature of good clinical care by the World Health Organization18 and in NHS policy.19 Shared decision making can be considered to comprise five components facilitated by the GP: defining the problem; providing information; exploring patients’ ideas, concerns, and expectations; checking their desire for involvement in a decision about their health care; and arranging for a future review of the decision.20 Patient involvement in decisions may vary from ‘passive’ to ‘highly active’.21 Dissonance between patients’ actual preferences for involvement and the doctor’s perception of their preferences22,23 can negatively affect patient satisfaction, emotional wellbeing, and treatment effect.21,24

Involving the patient in the decision is an important step when considering referral to secondary care. Although older patients are more likely to consult with their GP,25 it is younger patients who are more often referred.25 These inequalities exist with respect to a variety of health problems,26 with links to reduced survival rates suggested for older patients with ovarian cancer.27 The literature regarding shared decision making for older patients is generally sparse,6,28 but it reports variability in their desire29,30 and frequency31 of participation, when compared with younger patients.

A recent quantitative study32 revealed that a sense of shared decision making was particularly associated with the expression of trust in doctors among older patients when compared with younger patients. This finding contrasts with previous literature suggesting that older patients may prefer a more passive focus on receiving information, rather than on active participation in decisions,29,33 and with literature suggesting that trust can impede, as well as facilitate, older patients’ involvement.30 This study aimed to investigate the association between older patients’ trust in their GP and their perceptions of shared decision making. It was not appropriate to generate hypotheses in advance, therefore a grounded-theory approach was applied.34,35

How this fits in

A sense of shared decision making is associated with patients’ trust in the GP, for older patients in particular; and shared decision making and trust are reported to have positive health outcomes for patients. Despite this, older patients are involved less often in decisions about their health care when compared with younger patients; communication interventions to facilitate this process for older patients are outdated; and there is some evidence to suggest that there may be associated health inequalities. The present study uses qualitative methods to address a gap in the literature, by bringing together previously reported concepts regarding patient trust, and preferences for shared decision making, and highlighting their significance within the context of the older patient and the GP. Several factors are outlined that could be addressed by future policy developers to allow GPs to improve older patients’ involvement in decision making while facilitating their trust in the doctor.

METHOD

Qualitative methods were used, interviewing patients registered with three general practice surgeries in Devon, UK (Table 1). Sampling took place on three successive mornings. Potential participants were systematically identified with receptionists prior to initial contact in the waiting room. Selection and inclusion criteria were patients aged ≥65 years, registered with the surgery for at least 6 months. Patients were then approached consecutively. Potential participants were provided with a patient information sheet, and a reply sheet asking about the last time they saw a GP, how good that GP was at involving them in decisions about their care, whether they had trust in the GP, the patient’s contact details, and the name of the GP they usually see. They were invited to reply within 4 weeks. After receipt of patients’ agreement, the usual GP was contacted regarding exclusion criteria, for example vulnerability after bereavement, severe mental illness, severe cognitive impairment, end-stage disease, communication difficulties, or a learning disability. If none applied, responders were contacted to arrange an interview.

View this table:
Table 1.

Characteristics of participants (n = 20)

Written informed consent was obtained prior to undertaking semi-structured interviews. Interviews were aided by a topic guide, digitally audiorecorded, and transcribed in full. Field notes documented the interviewer’s thoughts and later aided coding. The topic guide (Appendix 1) initially consisted of four questions, used flexibly. Participants were encouraged to discuss their own ideas and to accumulate emergent themes,36 which became probes for later interviews and topic guide subheadings.34 Interviews were all conducted by the first author.

A constant comparative,34,37 inductive approach meant there were no predetermined variables for data collection. The first person acted solely as the transcriber and coder. Audiorecordings were listened to repeatedly to improve validity of transcription. Units of meaning were thematically analysed35 by hand, enabling greater immersion in the data. New fragments of coding were constantly compared with old data to construct common themes37 and cautious propositional statements. Disconfirming evidence was actively sought; new codes accounted for data that appeared contradictory to developing themes. The sample size was reviewed during analysis as the importance of a breadth of participants across the age group and social backgrounds became apparent. Data collection continued until there were no more new themes emerging and thereby saturation was achieved. An audit trail was available through saved audiorecordings, coded transcription, and the researcher’s diary.

RESULTS

Of 50 participants approached, 22 replied. These individuals varied by sex, age, and social background, but not ethnic group. All 22 potential participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria; none were excluded after GP review; two declined at the point of arranging interviews, one because of ill-health, and one did not have time to participate. This left 20 who participated (Table 1).

All but one participant reported trust in the GP they last saw, and all reported that the GP had involved them in decisions about their health care. Many were able to discuss occasions of less trust or of feeling less involved, however, sometimes when consulting with another GP.

Older patients’ perceptions of involvement

A spectrum of involvement was reported with regard to decisions about health care. Some participants expressed definite trust in a GP’s opinion, particularly those who had experienced continuity of care. An explanation of this opinion was usually valued, however, and perceived by participants to represent patient involvement, augmenting their trust: ‘Whatever advice he [the GP] gives me, I would never have said “no”. I got full trust in my doctor. I know some people say well they don’t, but with mine I’ve got 100% trust. [...] I likes to go in the room and I knows it’s my doctor and I can speak to him. He tries to explain things to me. I had a X-ray on the chest a little while ago and he says “your heart’s a bit out of shape” like, but he said “don’t worry, you’re still working!”. He explained everything, yeah, and I mean he put me on the right road and I took his advice.’(77-year-old male)

The provision of patient choice as a method of involvement was frequently valued across the participant group. Some described feeling overwhelmed by the complexity of information relating to a particular decision, however, and expressed greater trust in a GP who provided a definitive view in respect of their care: ‘The main one was whether to go for the bypass as opposed to the gastric band. I mean I had long talks with Dr T over that, but Dr T was very clear about the advantages and disadvantages. He’ll make suggestions, but I don’t have to abide by them or agree. So at the moment I’m confident that Dr T is kind of funnelling information and we’re trying to make sense of things between us.’(67-year-old female)

’Certainly my GP always makes me decide, you know, “What would you like to do?” Well, I don’t know, and I have sat there and said to him, “I don’t know, what would you suggest?” [...] Sometimes I don’t want to know what’s happening for an operation or something you know. He never pushed the line. It was up to you, you had to … He couldn’t make my mind up, but he could advise me, which he did.’(77-year-old male)

A few participants reported occasions on which they had taken a decision into their own hands, without first consulting the GP. Those who reported self-management, self-referral, or non-compliance, however, also reported returning to a GP in whom they had trust, to keep the GP informed and to discuss their opinion. This process, of retrospectively returning to the GP, was also reported by participants to be a method by which they felt involved in decisions: ‘But I was very naughty I’m afraid, I’ll admit that. For a few months I was having the tablets and not taking them, because I thought they’d hurt me [...] I said, I haven’t been taking them. I think he [the GP] said there’s nothing in them to hurt you, you’re on a very low dose, and I’ve been taking them ever since, every day.’(96-year-old female)

‘It was my knees really, I can’t afford to be away from the house and incapacitated so I’m not gonna have them done after all. So I tried these silly stockings. I checked with Dr D. afterwards and he said, “Well, that’ll be alright”.’(78-year-old male)

Older patients’ preferences for involvement

Participants discussed trust in the context of factors that affected their preferences for involvement. The oldest participants acknowledged increasing awareness of their own health and self-confidence in older age, wishing for information about ever more complex healthcare requirements. They wanted to trust in a GP who would act in their best interests; as an ally through the vulnerable ageing process, competently managing these increasing needs within the complexities of the healthcare system: ‘No, I mean when I was working I had four children to look after. If I went to the doctor it was in and out. Now all the bits have started dropping off! I mean you can’t know about everything, all these illnesses. Sometimes you need someone you can just talk it over with though, you know?’(94-year-old female)

Less elderly participants reported that life experience gave them confidence to engage with a trusted GP as an ‘equal’. Their expectations of health care had increased with age, and participants reported that society had lost its ‘awe’ for doctors: ‘If I think back to when I was younger, I’m not sure I would have had the confidence to ask questions, or to even say why are we doing this, you know? [...] Yes, old enough and confident enough. I suppose now, I’m grown up and mixed with some grown-ups, a doctor’s a doctor.’(67-year-old female)

These participants expressed the view that changes in the doctor’s status were associated with patient preferences; for a less paternalistic and more patient-centred relationship with a trusted GP: ‘Today we expect an awful lot more out of the health service than when I had my children 40 years ago. But I think one’s attitude changes; you have a better overall view. The more you’re involved, the more you see what a vast and overwhelming organisation it is. You just hope they’re getting it right. [...] The sort of hierarchy of the medical profession was very different wasn’t it, and they very much made the decisions for you. I remember going with a very small baby and had a very scathing doctor. I think we always thought the medical profession knows best and there is only one answer. Now you know life isn’t black and white and there are so many different aspects of things they need to weigh up with you.’(77-year-old female)

The facilitation of older patients’ involvement

All participants reported common factors that facilitated their involvement in decisions about their health care, while also increasing their trust in the GP (Box 1). GP characteristics included: a patient-centred, caring, attentive, and holistic approach; appearing open and honest; and treating the patient as an equal. Many participants reported less trust, and suboptimal involvement, if they did not feel listened to or given enough time. Time seemed of greater importance with increasing participant age: ‘I feel more as an equal than I ever used to and that helps me to have a sensible, constructive conversation with him. I think being asked to contribute treats you as a person with your own views and the ability to make that decision for yourself […] but also to realise that I use them to help me with my health care. [...] I’ve got one lady friend, aged 99, and sometimes I talk to her and her doctors don’t seem to care. They don’t seem to often allow her to follow-up on things. You’ve got to be careful with the elderly you know. I sometimes think you are lucky to have a doctor who will take a bit of an interest, and take time, it’s important.’(71-year-old female)

Box 1.

Factors that facilitate an older patient’s preference for, and involvement in, decisions about their health care, which also nurture trust in the GP–patient relationship

Patient factors
Self-awareness and self-confidence
Increasing healthcare and health-information requirements
Vulnerability associated with ageing
Increasing expectations of health care
GP factors
GP characteristicsGP communication skills
Patient-centredAttentive listening
CaringProvision of explanation
HolisticAcknowledgement of the patient ‘as an equal’
Open and honestProvision of choice
Willing to discuss GP expertise
Offering of expert opinion
Willing to discuss uncertainties
System factors
Optimal access to a GP
Optimal consultation duration
Opportunities to find a GP–patient ‘match’
Continuity of care with a ‘usual’ GP
Societal and cultural factors
The status of the GP as perceived by society

Participants talked positively about continuity of care with an individual GP. Perceptions of an ideal GP–patient match differed between individuals, however; the well-educated valued a GP with whom they could discuss similar interests. Despite some frail participants’ frustrations regarding access difficulties affecting continuity of care, some participants reported not wanting to trouble their trusted doctor unduly. This perception adversely impacted on their involvement in decision making: ‘I would want to see my own doctor because I have experience with them; I’ve built up trust with them. He would say, “Well, how’s Bert?” and, “How’s so and so”, you know? I must admit I don’t like seeing them temporary ones down there. [...] So I explained what it was and he knew what he’d done before like, and he knew exactly what to do, and what he suggested I agreed. [...] I would always go through Dr G, although they others may be completely legit, and they could just read it off the computer screen. There’s always downsides of taking medications that needs to be discussed isn’t there, and I wouldn’t want to usurp Dr G’s role in looking after me. You do build a relationship with people.’(77-year-old male)

Several participants expressed trust in GPs who appeared both competent and confident in their abilities. ‘Meeting in the middle’, with the trusted GP talking openly about their expertise, as well as their uncertainties, and with the patient bringing knowledge about themselves, facilitated patient involvement: ‘You know she [the GP] was very, very confident. She came across as if she would listen to you and explain, and try and sort you out. I’ve been into the hospital once or twice. Once for an endoscopy because I had stomach trouble and it turned out I had a duodenal ulcer. Another time I went in and she thought I had a spot, you know which wouldn’t go, and they always think it might be cancer. She sent me in for that. That was alright, but she’s always very thorough like that you know, she’ll always make sure you go.’(89-year-old male)

DISCUSSION

Summary

When compared with younger patients, older patients particularly value trust in the GP–patient relationship.7 There are positive associations between patients’ trust and their involvement in decisions about their health care, which increase with patient age.32 Despite a greater frequency of GP consultations for older patients,25 and recognition of the importance of patient-centred care for this age group,16 there is variability in their participation in shared decision making33 and inequality in primary healthcare outcomes.17,26

This study involved detailed individual interviews with 20 older patients attending their GP. Older patients’ trust in the GP and the optimal facilitation of their involvement in decisions about their health care appear closely associated, and in a manner that is complex (Figure 1). Participants valued the sense of involvement in decisions but differed regarding how they felt involved. Trust influenced participants’ preferences for involvement, and was in turn affected by factors contributing to the facilitation of patient involvement.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Older patients and their GPs: associations and influences between shared decision making and enhancing trust.

Strengths and limitations

This study uses qualitative methods to address a gap in the literature and to inform potential changes in the way that GPs consult with older patients. There are few studies that explore shared decision making with older patients in depth.39 This study also contributes to the literature on identifying older patients’ unmet healthcare needs17 by highlighting factors that may facilitate this process, through shared decision making within a trusting GP–patient relationship.

The sample size was considered sufficient to achieve saturation40 and is comparable with previous studies using similar methodologies.41 The sample did not vary by ethnic group, as the majority of the Devon population are white.42 The possibility of findings being geographically context-specific, and that the sample may have contained more ‘frequent attenders’ than with another sampling method, was considered. However, the content of interviews spanned several years, locations, and discussed multiple GPs. Heterogeneity by age, sex, social background, and across practices allows applicability of emergent themes to be considered in a wider context.43 Consideration was given as to whether participants were referring to other factors, such as satisfaction, when discussing trust.44 Older patients have been reported to recognise these distinctions, however.45

Interviews were conducted by a GP. Participants were not informed of this unless they explicitly asked; this occurred on only three occasions, and at the end of interviews. Positional reflexivity, with consideration of how the researcher affected the analysis, was demonstrated through reflective notes and critical discussion between authors.46,47 Regrettably, there was a lack of independent researchers available for contemporaneous triangulation of data. The interviewing GP was usefully able to interpret interview content from an additional professional viewpoint, however.

Comparison with existing literature

The present study used detailed qualitative methods to explain apparent conflicts with findings from previous studies, which have suggested that older patients may not value feeling involved in decisions regarding health care,29,30,33 and that patients’ reported trust in doctors is most often associated with a preference to grant decisional authority.45

The present findings do, however, concur with the idea that patient perceptions vary regarding what it means to be involved in decisions.21,48 Firstly, some patients apply their perceived involvement paradoxically, by making a choice to let their trusted doctor make the clinical decisions.49 Secondly, the provision of explanation and choice to the patient, previously associated with patients’ trust,50,51 was reported to be a method of involvement, forming the ‘information giving’ part of the process recognised in the literature.20 Finally, a trusting GP–patient relationship increased the likelihood that participants would return to the GP, for a retrospective discussion of a decision made independently by themselves. Trusting GP–patient relationships have previously been associated with a sense of patient loyalty.20,52

The present study brings together previously reported concepts regarding patient trust and preferences for shared decision making within the context of older patients and their GPs. Participants recognised that increasing age is a risk factor for multimorbidity,53 a status known to increase preferences for shared decision making.54 The most older participants expressed a requirement for a GP ‘ally’ in the management of increasingly complex healthcare requirements. Participants recognised that, independent of multimorbidity, age brings greater expectations of health care,24 but that societal views can influence preferences for shared decision making.55

The particular influence of other factors on associations between patients’ trust is highlighted, and the facilitation of shared decision making, with respect to older patients and the GP. Continuity of care,56,57 and patient choice for a GP–patient ‘match’,51,58 have been associated with patients’ trust. Continuity with an available, approachable GP is particularly valued by older patients.59,60 Perceptions of the doctor’s competence, listening skills61 and holistic approach,62 are all known to affect trust.4 Perceptions of being given enough time28,59,63 appeared strongly associated with trust and patient involvement for the most older participants. The influence of societal factors on patients’ perceptions of access,64 and on trust in an individual practitioner,2 was particularly apparent for the present participants, who have lived through cultural change.

Implications for research and practice

The present participants did not all report each element of the shared decision-making process previously identified as being of importance in the literature.20 Patients’ perceptions of involvement are, however, considered important in predicting outcomes.48 Further research might usefully investigate whether it is the perception of patient involvement, or ‘actual’ patient involvement, that is of importance in determining patients’ trust. More consistency in training doctors in shared decision making has been suggested.65 There may be scope to harness the unique insight of older patients, who can reflect retrospectively on developments in doctors’ communication skills over time, for the purposes of training.

Current suggestions to empower older patients in shared decision making include involving a third person, and discussing the decision holistically.62 Previously developed communication interventions, designed to enable patients to initiate their own involvement in decision making,66 are not targeted specifically at older patients. Others,21,67 designed to assess older patients’ preferences for involvement,21,49,68 often appear outdated.69

Life expectancy is predicted to continue to rise.70 The present findings have the potential to inform future policy aimed at improving GPs’ care of older patients by facilitating shared decision making, through making adjustments to GP and system-related factors while taking account of the needs and characteristics of individual patients. Doing so may go some way towards addressing inequalities in healthcare outcomes for older patients visiting their GP.25,26

Acknowledgments

We thank the patients, GPs, and staff of St Leonard’s Practice, St Thomas’ Health Centre, and Ide Lane Surgery.

Appendix 1: Interview topic guide

Older patients and their GPs — exploring shared decision making in enhancing trust

This interview is part of a study exploring how trust is affected when GPs involve older patients in decisions about their health care.

  1. Tell me about your last visit to your GP.

  2. Can you think back and tell me about a time when there needed to be a decision made about your health care?

    Prompt as necessary:

    1. This might have been starting or changing a medication, deciding whether to do an investigation or refer you to a specialist, or deciding whether you needed to be admitted to hospital.

    2. Can you tell me about this decision and how you feel you were/were not involved?

    3. How did your (lack of) involvement affect the way you thought and felt about the GP?

  3. Can you tell me how your thoughts about your GP have changed over time and why you think that might be?

    Prompt as necessary:

    1. Has your trust in your GP changed over time? Why do you think that is?

    2. How could your GP improve the level of trust you feel in them?

  4. Do you think the things you value in a consultation with your GP have changed as you have got older? If so, in what way? Why do you think that is?

    Prompt as necessary:

    1. Has your involvement in decisions about your health care changed over time? In what way?

    2. Would you like to be more or less involved in decisions about your health care now? Why is that?

Thank you for your participation in this interview. Is there anything else you would like to talk about that you think is relevant to the topic?

Notes

Funding

This study was conducted during a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded Academic Clinical Fellowship followed by an NIHR-funded In-Practice Fellowship for Joanne E Butterworth (IPF-2013-07-004).

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the NRES Ethics Committee London — City & East (Ref 12L01585), as well as the local R&D Office, prior to commencement of the study.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org.uk/letters

  • Received November 19, 2013.
  • Revision requested February 13, 2014.
  • Revision requested April 23, 2014.
  • Accepted May 6, 2014.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jalava J
    (2003) From norms to trust: the Luhmannian connections between trust and system. EJST 6(2):173–179.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Dibbens MR,
    2. Davies HTO
    (2004) Trustworthy doctors in confidence building systems. Qual Saf Health Care 13(2):88–89.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Fugelli P
    (2001) Trust — in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 51:575–579.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Mechanic D,
    2. Meyer S
    (2000) Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness. Soc Sci Med 51(5):657–668.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Little P,
    2. Everitt H,
    3. Williamson I,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Preferences of patients for patient centred approach to consultation in primary care: observational study. BMJ 322:468.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Mascarenhas OAJ,
    2. Cardozo LJ,
    3. Afonso NM,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Hypothesized predictors of patient-physician trust and distrust in the elderly: implications for health and disease management. Clin Interv Aging 1(2):175–188.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Berkelmans PG1,
    2. Berendsen AJ,
    3. Verhaak PF,
    4. van der Meer K
    (2010) Characteristics of general practice care: what do senior citizens value? BMC Geriatr 10:80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Cohen D,
    2. Longo MF,
    3. Hood K,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Resource effects of training general practitioners in risk communication skills and shared decision making competences. J Eval Clin Pract 10(3):439–445.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    1. Edwards A,
    2. Elwyn G
    (2004) Involving patients in decision making and communicating risk: a longitudinal evaluation of doctors’ attitudes, and confidence during a randomized trial. J Eval Clin Pract 10(3):431–437.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Ommen O,
    2. Thuem S,
    3. Pfaff H,
    4. et al.
    (2011) The relationship between social support, shared decision-making and patient’s trust in doctors: a cross-sectional survey of 2197 inpatients using the Cologne Patient Questionnaire. Int J Public Health 56(3):319–327.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. McAllister M,
    2. Dunn G,
    3. Payne K,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Patient empowerment: the need to consider it as a measurable patient-reported outcome for chronic conditions. BMC Health Serv Res 12:157.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    1. Loh A,
    2. Leonhart R,
    3. Wills CE,
    4. et al.
    (2006) The impact of patient participation on adherence and clinical outcome in primary care of depression. Patient Educ Couns 65(1):69–78.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.
    1. Staiger TO,
    2. Jarvik JG,
    3. Deyo RA,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Brief report: patient-physician agreement as a predictor of outcomes in patients with back pain. J Gen Intern Med 20:935–937.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Flocke SA,
    2. Miller WL,
    3. Crabtree BF
    (2013) Relationships between physician practice style, patient satisfaction, and attributes of primary care. J Fam Pract 51(10):835–840.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Williamson J,
    2. Stokoe IH,
    3. Gray S,
    4. et al.
    (1964) Old people at home. Their unreported needs. Lancet 283(7343):1117–1120.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Department of Health
    (2001) National service framework for older people, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/quality-standards-for-care-services-for-older-people (accessed 19 Sep 2014).
  17. 17.↵
    1. Drennan V,
    2. Walters K,
    3. Lenihan P,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Priorities in identifying unmet need in older people attending general practice: a nominal gorup technique study. J Fam Pract 24(5):454–460.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. World Heath Organization
    (1994) A declaration on the promotion of patients’ rights in Europe, http://www.who.int/genomics/public/eu_declaration1994.pdf (accessed 19 Sep 2014).
  19. 19.↵
    1. Department of Health
    (2013) Liberating the NHS: no decision about me, without me, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216980/Liberating-the-NHS-No-decision-about-me-without-me-Government-response.pdf (accessed 19 Sep 2014).
  20. 20.↵
    1. Elwyn G,
    2. Edwards A,
    3. Kinnersley P,
    4. Grol R
    (2000) Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. Br J Gen Pract 50(460):892–897.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Kiesler DJ,
    2. Auerbach SM
    (2006) Optimal matches of patient preferences for information, decision-making and interpersonal behavior: evidence, models and interventions. Patient Educ Couns 61:319–341.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Elkin EB,
    2. Kim SHM,
    3. Casper ES,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Desire for information and involvement in treatment decisions: elderly cancer patients’ preferences and their physicians' perceptions. J Clin Oncol 25(33):5275–5280.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Ekdahl AW,
    2. Hellström I,
    3. Andersson L,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Too complex and time-consuming to fit in! Physicians’ experiences of elderly patients and their participation in medical decision making: a grounded theory study. BMJ Open 2(3):e001063.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Bowling A,
    2. Rowe G,
    3. McKee M
    (2013) Patients’ experiences of their healthcare in relation to their expectations and satisfaction: a population survey. J R Soc Med 106(4):143–149.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Dixon A,
    2. Le Grand J,
    3. Henderson J,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Is the British National Health Service equitable? The evidence on socioeconomic differences on utilization. J Health Serv Res Pol 12(2):104–109.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. McBride D,
    2. Hardoon S,
    3. Walters K,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Explaining variation in referral from primary to secondary care: cohort study. BMJ Open 341:c6267.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Tate A,
    2. Nicholson A,
    3. Cassell J
    (2010) Are GPs under-investigating older patients presenting with symptoms of ovarian cancer? Observational study using General Practice Research Database. Br J Cancer 102(6):947–951.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Wetzels R,
    2. Geest TA,
    3. Wensing M,
    4. et al.
    (2004) GPs’ views on involvement of older patients: an European qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns 53(2):183–188.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Bastiaens H,
    2. Royen PV,
    3. Pavlic DR,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Older people’s preferences for involvement in their own care: a qualitative study in primary care in 11 European countries. Patient Educ Couns 68(1):33–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Belcher VN,
    2. Fried TR,
    3. Agostini JV,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Views of older adults on patient participation in medication-related decision making. J Gen Intern Med 21(4):298–303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. van den Brink-Muinen A,
    2. van Dulmen SM,
    3. de Haes HCJM,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Has patients’ involvement in the decision-making process changed over time? Health Expect 9(4):333–342.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Croker JE,
    2. Swancutt DR,
    3. Roberts MJ,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Factors affecting patients’ trust and confidence in GPs: evidence from the English national GP Patient Survey. BMJ Open 3(5):e002762.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Levinson W,
    2. Kao A,
    3. Kuby A,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Not all patients want to participate in decision making. A national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med 20(6):531–535.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Glaser B,
    2. Strauss A
    (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Br J Sociol 20(2):227.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Mills J,
    2. Bonner A,
    3. Francis M
    (2006) The development of constructivist grounded theory. Int J Qual Methods 5(1):25–35.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    1. Britten N,
    2. Jones R,
    3. Murphy E,
    4. et al.
    (1995) Qualitative research methods in general practice and primary care. Fam Pract 12(1):104–113.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Maykut P,
    2. Morehouse R
    (1994) Qualitative data analysis — using the constant comparative technique: Beginning qualitative research (The Farmer Press, London).
  38. 38.
    1. Health and Social Care Information Centre
    (2012) The NHS IC Indicator Portal, www.hscic.gov.uk (accessed 30 Sep 2014).
  39. 39.↵
    1. Wetzels R,
    2. Harmsen M,
    3. Van Weel C,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Interventions for improving older patients’ involvement in primary care episodes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD004273.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Corbin JM,
    2. Strauss AC
    (1998) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).
  41. 41.↵
    1. Green J,
    2. Thorogood N
    (2009) Qualitative methods for health research (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 2nd edn.
  42. 42.↵
    1. Office for National Statistics
    (July, 2012) Statistical bulletin: 2011 census — population and Household Estimates for England and Wales, http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/population-and-household-estimates-for-england-and-wales/stb-e-w.html (accessed 30 Sep 2014).
  43. 43.↵
    1. Coyne IT
    (1997) Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling: merging or clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs 26(3):623–630.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Balkrishnan R,
    2. Dugan E,
    3. Camacho FT,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Trust and satisfaction with physicians, insurers and the medical profession. Med Care 41(9):1058–1064.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Trachtenberg F,
    2. Dugan E,
    3. Hall MA
    (2005) How patients’ trust relates to their involvement in medical care. J Fam Pract 54(4):344–352.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Whittemore R,
    2. Chase SK,
    3. Mandle CL
    (2001) Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 11(4):522–537.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Macbeth D
    (2013) On ‘reflexivity’ in qualitative research: two readings, and a third. qualitative inquiry 7(1):35–68.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    1. Saba GW,
    2. Wong ST,
    3. Schillinger D,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Shared decision making and the experience of partnership in primary care. Ann Fam Med 4(1):54–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Schattner A
    (2002) What do patients really want to know? QJM 95(135):136.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    1. Thom DH
    (2001) Physician behaviors that predict patient trust. J Fam Pract 50(4):323–328.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Chu-Weininger MYL,
    2. Balkrishnan R
    (2006) Consumer satisfaction with primary care provider choice and associated trust. BMC Health Serv Res 6:139.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Platonova EA,
    2. Kennedy KN,
    3. Shewchuk RM
    (2008) Understanding patient satisfaction, trust, and loyalty to primary care physicians. Med Care Res Rev 65(6):696.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Marengoni A,
    2. Angleman S,
    3. Melis R,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Aging with multimorbidity: a systematic review of the literature. Ageing Res Rev 10(4):430–439.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Hitchcock Nöel P,
    2. Parchman ML,
    3. Williams JW,
    4. et al.
    (2007) The challenges of multimorbidity from the patient perspective. J Gen Intern Med 22(3):419–424.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Hubbard G,
    2. Kidd L,
    3. Donaghy E
    (2008) Preferences for involvement in treatment decision making of patients with cancer: a review of the literature. Eur J Oncol Nurs 12(4):299–318.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Tarrant C,
    2. Stokes T,
    3. Baker R
    (2003) Factors associated with patients’ trust in their general practitioner: a cross-sectional survey. Br J Gen Pract 53(495):798–800.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    1. Gambetta D
    1. Luhmann N
    (2013) in Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations, Familiarity, confidence, trust: problems and alternatives, ed Gambetta D (Department of Sociology, University of Oxford), pp 94–107.
  58. 58.↵
    1. Hsu J,
    2. Schmittdiel J,
    3. Krupat E,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Patient choice. A randomised controlled trial of provider selection. J Gen Intern Med 18(5):319–325.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Modig S,
    2. Kristensson J,
    3. Margareta T,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Frail elderly patients’ experiences of information on medication. A qualitative study. BMC Geriatr 12:46.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Nutting PA,
    2. Goodwin MA,
    3. Flocke SA,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Continuity of primary care: to whom does it matter and when? Ann Fam Med 1(3):149–155.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. 61.↵
    1. Fiscella K,
    2. Meldrum S,
    3. Franks P,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Patient trust: is it related to patient-centred behaviour of primary care physicians? Med Care 42(11):1049–1055.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Leemann Price E,
    2. Bereknyei S,
    3. Kuby A,
    4. et al.
    (2012) New elements for informed decision making: a qualitative study of older adults’ views. Patient Educ Couns 86(3):335–341.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Freeman GK,
    2. Horder JP,
    3. Howie JGR,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Evolving general practice consultation in Britain: issues of length and context. BMJ 324(7342):880–882.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  64. 64.↵
    1. Aday LA,
    2. Anderson R
    (1974) A framework for the study of access to medical care. Health Serv Res 9(3):208–220.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Légaré F,
    2. Witteman HO
    (2013) Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Aff 32(2):276–284.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    1. Post DM,
    2. Cegala DJ,
    3. Miser WF
    (2002) The other half of the whole: teaching patients to communicate with physicians. Fam Med 34(5):344–352.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. O’Connor AM,
    2. Rostom A,
    3. Fiset V,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ 18(319):731–734.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    1. Schneider A,
    2. Körner T,
    3. Mehring M,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Impact of age, health locus of control and psychological co-morbidity on patients’ preferences for shared decision making in general practice. Patient Educ Couns 61(2):292–298.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Peters RM
    (1994) Matching physician practice style to patient information issues and decision-making preferences. An approach to patient autonomy and medical paternalism issues in clinical practice. Arch Fam Med 3(9):760–763.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Oeppen J,
    2. Vaupel JW
    (2002) Demography: broken limits to life expectancy. Science 296(5570):1029–1031.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 64 (628)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 64, Issue 628
November 2014
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Older patients and their GPs: shared decision making in enhancing trust
Joanne E Butterworth, John L Campbell
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (628): e709-e718. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X682297
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

 
 

British Journal of General Practice