Participation in Medical Decision Making: The Patients' Perspective
2007 27: 533 originally published online 14 September 2007
The online version of this article can be found at:
can be found at: Medical Decision Making Additional services and information for
Participation in Medical Decision Making:
Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, Sarah McGraw, PhD
Purpose. Variability in reports of patients’ preferences to
participation may change over time, 2) decision making is
participate in decision making may be due in part to a
performed within an extended social context, 3) the deci-
lack of understanding about how patients conceptualize
sions patients report being involved in are often distinct
their participation. The authors sought to learn more
from those traditionally studied (choice of treatment or
about how patients view their involvement in decisions
screening strategies), 4) patient involvement in decision
related to their health care. Methods. The authors con-
making occurs in response to physicians’ recommenda-
ducted individual interviews to allow patients to frame
tions, and 5) patients make choices in the context of their
the decision-making process from their own perspective.
specific illness perceptions. Conclusions. Participants in
The constant comparative-method approach to analysis
this study view their participation in decision making as
was employed to ensure that the analysts defined the
including ideas distinct from those traditionally discussed
codes in a consistent manner. Results. Twenty-six persons
by researchers. These findings suggest that the variability
were interviewed. The main themes discussed by the par-
in patient participation noted in previous studies may be
ticipants reflecting how they viewed their involvement in
due in part to limitations in study design. Key words:
medical decision making are the following: 1) decision
medical decision making; qualitative study; patient parti-
making is often an ongoing process in which patient
cipation. (Med Decis Making 2007;27:533–538)
Patient participation in decision making fulfills supported by research with the currently available
the ethical principle of patient autonomy and
the legal requirement of informed consent. Studies
Deber and others4 hypothesized, and subsequently
published to date, however, have reported signifi-
demonstrated, that variability in patients’ desire
cant variability in how much patients want to parti-
to participate in decision making is in part due to
cipate in this process.1–7 For example, in a recent
the failure of survey questions to adequately differ-
large population-based survey, Levinson and others2
entiate between problem-solving tasks (i.e., determin-
found that 52% of respondents preferred to leave the
ing the correct diagnosis and delineating appropriate
final decision up to their doctor. Moreover, Kiesler
treatment choices) and decision-making tasks (i.e.,
and Auerbach6 found that the common belief that
choosing a treatment or intervention from a rational
matching patients’ preferred level of involvement
set of options). In point of fact, in Levinson and the
will lead to positive outcomes was not consistently
study by Levinson and others, the vast majority ofpatients wanted to be offered choices, even thoughmany preferred to leave the final decision up to theirdoctor.2 This discrepancy suggests that the variabil-
Received 12 June 2006 from the VA Connecticut Healthcare System
ity in patients’ preferences to participate in decision
and Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut (LF),
making noted in recent studies7 may be in part due
and the New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Massachusetts(SM). This study was partially funded by the Arthritis Foundation Clini-
to limitations in the survey instruments used to
cal Science Grant. Dr Fraenkel is supported by the K23 Award
AR048826-01 A1. Revision accepted for publication 9 March 2007.
Patient and physician beliefs differ in many res-
Address correspondence to Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, Yale University
pects, including how they conceptualize illness, how
School of Medicine, Section of Rheumatology, 300 Cedar Street, TAC
they prioritize long-term outcomes, and how they
Building, Room 525, P.O. Box 208031, New Haven, CT 06520-8031;
rank available treatment options.8–12 Likewise, it is
telephone: 203-932-5711 extension 5914; fax: 293-937-4932; e-mail:
also possible that physicians and patients differ in
how they conceptualize participation in decsion mak-
ing. If this hypothesis is correct, current instruments
may not accurately reflect patients’ preferences to par-
included 14 open-ended questions on participants’
ticipate in decision making. Given this background,
experiences with medical decision making (see the
we performed a qualitative study to better understand
appendix). Participants were first asked to think
how patients view their involvement in decisions
back to a time when an important decision had to be
made about treatment of an illness or medical condi-tion and then specifically prompted as necessary to
discuss their involvement or lack of involvement inthe decision-making process.
Each interview ran for up to 90 min and was
conducted by the same PhD-level senior research
A qualitative study was chosen as the best appro-
scientist (SM), who has extensive experience in qua-
ach to elicit patients’ descriptions of their own experi-
litative research and interviews. All participants
ences and their interpretations of these experiences
gave informed consent, and the Yale University
related to decision making in their own medical care.
Institutional Review Boards approved the protocol.
We wanted to allow patients to frame the decision-
The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed by
making process from their own perspective and to
a professional transcription service. Demographic
avoid imposing any assumptions about how the pro-
data (age, race, education, marital and employment
cess is defined. Individual face-to-face audiotaped
status) were collected at the beginning of each inter-
interviews were chosen over focus groups for this
view using a self-administered questionnaire. All
study because interviews allow for more in-depth
questions offered a defined set of responses, except
exploration of each respondent’s individual experi-
ences and thoughts. By using extensive in-depthprobing, we hoped to uncover a broader and more
detailed understanding of the patient perspective.
The constant comparative method of analysis was
employed to ensure that the 2 coders defined and
applied codes in a consistent manner across all tran-scripts. The analysts (SM and LF) independently
Participants were drawn from a larger study
read all of the transcripts and developed an initial
examining patient treatment preferences for osteo-
list of codes.15 We stopped interviewing patients
porosis. The sampling frame for the larger parent
when we noted that no new ideas were discussed
study was men older than 65 years and postmeno-
after 3 consecutive interviews. After all the inter-
pausal women who had recently (within 2 weeks)
views were conducted, codes were refined with sub-
undergone bone densitometry from 6 centers in the
headings on a 2nd reading of the transcripts and
greater New Haven, Connecticut, area. The vast
applied to specific sections of each transcript.16
majority of patients referred to these centers are
QSR∗NUDIST (Sage Publications Software, Thou-
women. Participants for this qualitative study were
sand Oaks, CA) was used to identify and sort the
drawn consecutively from the group of patients
relevant text across the transcripts for each code.17
whose bone densitometry measures were too high to
Sections were reread to identify patients’ concepts
make them eligible to participate in the larger, par-
related to their participation in decision making.
ent study. Other eligibility criteria included the abil-
The demographic data were summarized using
ity to speak and understand English.
descriptive statistics (SAS Software, version 8.0;SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
Using a semistructured discussion guide, the
interviews followed a funnel structure, progressing
from broader open-ended questions to more struc-tured questions with specific probes to clarify issues
A total of 25 women and 1 man were interviewed
as needed.13 Opening with broader questions helps
between April 2004 and July 2005. The mean age of
to elicit concepts or topics of greatest salience to
the participants was 61 years (range = 49–76). All
the participants, an important feature of qualitative
were Caucasian, 69% were married, 50% had a
as opposed to structured interviews.14 The guide
graduate degree, and 23% were retired.
534 • MEDICAL DECISION MAKING/SEP–OCT 2007
part of, a larger social unit. For example, someviewed themselves as supporting family members:
The main themes that arose during the interviews,
related to how participants conceptualize their parti-
My sister and I have been instrumental in helping both
cipation in medical decision making, noted that
parents make decisions when it was necessary in their
decision making 1) is often an ongoing process, 2)
involves an extended social context, 3) includes
I wasn’t a patient’s annoying spouse. I was a member
decisions distinct from those traditionally studied,
of the team taking care of him, is what I felt like.
4) occurs in response to physicians’ recommenda-
tions, and 5) occurs in the context of patients’ illnessperceptions.
Others highlighted the need for someone to assist
An ongoing process. Some patients described their
involvement in the decision-making process as onethat occurred over time. For example, one respon-
They really need somebody to be there to advocate for
them . . . if you don’t really know anything about thesystem or how things go . . . if you’re just like, ‘‘I’m here;
Sometimes a patient might say, well, I want to do a lit-
take care of me,’’ you could get seriously screwed.
tle bit more research, or maybe I want to consult with
Well if I had questions . . . usually I brought my daughter
Another respondent described a series of conversa-
with me. Because you know when you go in there you
tions she had with her doctor about which medicine
are a little unnerved. You might not ask all the ques-tions . . . and what I don’t ask she will. (Interview 19)
to take to lower her cholesterol. After beginningwith one drug, she reviewed the formulary of herinsurance company to find the cheapest medicine
One participant noted that including others in
and then requested that her doctor change her medi-
high-stake decisions benefits both patients as well
cine. She then continued to evaluate the tradeoffs
involved in this treatment decision, as illustrated bythe following quote:
I think especially if you’re doing it by yourself that theburden is extreme. When you’re in a situation you’re
Once I started taking it, I started questioning. You know,
going to make a decision totally on your own without
reading up on it and finding out. But it can cause liver
any influence from anyone else . . . the decision you
damage and that frightened me. I asked him to explain
. . . what is the risk-benefit ratio here? (Interview 2)
Includes decisions distinct from those traditionally
studied. Patients interviewed in this study chose to
usually related to cancer treatment, as including mul-
discuss their participation in decisions related to
tiple decisions over time related to diverse domains,
choice of physicians and whether to accept physi-
including attitudes toward screening or follow-up
cians’ recommendations more often than the choice
as well as curative and palliative treatment. For
some, their preferred role in the decision-making pro-cess changed over time. For example, one woman
[He] felt that he would do better switching [medical]
described how a friend had participated actively in
groups, and there was a lot of anxiety about doing that,
many decisions related to her breast cancer until she
because he’s not a person who does that easily . . . but in
no longer felt strong enough to contribute:
the end we did. It was a difficult decision. (Interview 10)
I had to make a medical decision. Leave the doctor I
But when she got there she was just kind of exhausted
had gone to for 5 years and go to somebody new. (Inter-
from making decisions and really worried and really
just wanted people to tell her what to do. (Interview 10)
The main decision I kept making was that I wasn’t get-
Involves an extended social context. Some partici-
ting anywhere at this particular station. You move on to
pants in this study viewed active patient participa-
another guy . . . hoping that someone would be of help.
tion in decision making as occurring within, or as
Participants also described making decisions to
Others felt that their physicians’ recommendation
both acquire and reject health services against their
stipulated the decision and consequently limited
physicians’ advice. Decisions against physicians’
He feels what he says should be done. If you have anyobjections, you can talk about them, but his word is
But I made the decision that I wanted to go have a stress
test anyway because I just think that’s the right thing to
Sometime he doesn’t say a word when you ask
things . . . so you know he’s not going to change. You
I think I’m going to call and get an ultrasound, just for
know he just came out of the Connecticut Magazine as
my peace of mind, and when I went there, they weren’t
one of the 10 best doctors, so he knows what he’s talk-
going to pay for it because my doctor didn’t feel it was
necessary so I paid out of pocket. (Interview 11)
Occurs in the context of patients’ illness percep-
In contrast, decisions to reject physicians’ recom-
tions. In this study, participants highlighted the fact
mendations centered on prescription drugs:
that information and/or recommendations are inter-preted based on each patient’s individual illness
I made the decision not to do Lipitor, even though my
cholesterol is 230. The diet and the treadmill and bar-bells and that’s as good as it’s going to get. (Interview 15)
If somebody comes in and says you have to do this and
And I did send away for the pills. I did order them. I got
you just nod and say ok, and go home and don’t do any
them home, and I looked at them and I go, I’m not tak-
of it. But . . . if it makes sense to me, then I’ll do it. (Inter-
[I filled the prescription] about 2 weeks ago, and I still
The conclusion I came to was that you’re not getting at
have it. I don’t forget my other pills. It probably is more
the cause of the carpal tunnel if you go for surgery.
When this woman suggested that the problem was com-ing from tightening my shoulder, it made sense to me,
In an example of a decision manifested in a non-
and that’s what I started working on, and I did not goback to the orthopedist. (Interview 9)
action, one woman described that she was told thatshe had osteopenia and should ‘‘take some kind of
Others felt that individual patient health beliefs
were so important that they should be not onlyacknowledged by the physician but also concordant
I never called the doctor back. I mean, I know I should.
with the physician’s personal views. For example,
It’s only been about a month, I think, but I don’t want togo on this medication. (Interview 20)
I’m not a good medicine taker or pill taker. We think
Occurs in response to physicians’ recommendations.
alike and that’s very important. (Interview 1)
In this study, participants uniformly responded that
I think they have to have a similar belief system or I
they highly valued their physicians’ recommenda-
don’t think the patient is going to trust the doctor, and
tions. Some participants viewed the physicians’
the doctor can’t possibly believe that the patient is going
recommendations as an important piece of informa-
to follow through with the treatment. (Interview 22)
tion. In these instances, the physician was viewedas a consultant:
I think the physician’s recommendation is presented toyou, and then you have to decide whether you want it or
In this qualitative study, patients described their
not and how much you agree with him. (Interview 12)
participation in decision making using several con-cepts that differ from those usually included in sur-
The doctor lays out the risks and benefits, and you take
all of that information and put it together with what is
participate in decisions related to their health care.
For example, researchers often query patients on
He [the physician] suggests and I make the decision.
their preference to participate in a particular deci-
sion at a discrete point in time.6,7,18,19 However, in
536 • MEDICAL DECISION MAKING/SEP–OCT 2007
this study, patients frequently described their parti-
attach to each of the factors discussed. There are sev-
cipation in decision making as an ongoing process.
eral additional limitations of this study. We did not
In fact, the highly educated patients’ description of
include personal logbooks, observation methods,
how they view their role (i.e., to gather information
official reports, or focus groups to corroborate our
over time and to weigh the consequences of each
results. Participants were enrolled consecutively,
alternative) is reflective of what experts advocate to
and we did not purposely look for deviant cases. Our
promote high-quality decision making.20 Patients in
sample was composed primarily of Caucasian, well-
this study also raised the important point that pre-
educated, postmenopausal women, which limits the
ference for participation may change over time. This
generalizability of our results. Inclusion of a more
issue highlights the limitations of surveying patients
diverse sample might yield even more discrepancies
on a single occasion but perhaps more importantly
between the domains considered by patients to
indicates that added support may be required to
reflect active participation and those covered in stu-
enable patients to participate in difficult decisions
dies using currently available instruments.
In summary, patients in this study viewed patient
Studies examining patient participation in deci-
participation in decision making as including con-
sion making have usually focused on choice of treat-
cepts distinct from those traditionally evaluated.
ment or screening strategies.6,7 In this study, in
These findings suggest that underestimation of
which participants were given the opportunity to
patients’ desire to participate in medical decision
discuss 1 or more decisions of their choice, those
making may be due in part to inadequate under-
discussed most frequently were related to choice of
standing of how patients conceptualize participa-
physician and whether to accept physicians’ recom-
tion and consequent limitations in survey design.
mendations, 2 situations in which patients clearly
Based on the content of the interviews conducted,
recognize the importance of their input. This find-
future studies examining patients’ preferred role in
ing calls attention to the importance of ensuring that
decision making should consider the following:
patients appreciate the importance of their contribu-tion before querying them on their preferred role
1. allowing for opportunities to reevaluate decisions
to participate in a specified decision. In addition,
over time in response to acquisition of new
investigators have generally queried patients on
their preferred level of participation as indivi-
2. ascertaining preferences from the appropriate social
duals.6,7 Notably, patients in this study frequently
viewed their participation in decision making as
3. ensuring that patients understand the value of their
occurring within a larger social unit, thereby empha-
input for the decision under consideration,
sizing the need to include all relevant stakeholders
4. including a reference to the physician’s recommen-
when surveying patients about their desire to partici-
5. ensuring that patients’ understanding of the expected
pate in important decisions affecting their health
course of their disease is based on accurate informa-
tion so they may evaluate treatment alternatives.
The differences in how patients conceptualize
their participation in medical decision making com-pared with how health professionals conceptualize
and study this process are consistent with differences
in how patients and health care professionals under-stand and address medical symptoms.21 Althoughphysicians focus on a disease model that centers on
1. To begin, I am going to ask you to think back to a
symptoms, testing, diagnosis, and treatment, patients’
time when an important decision had to be made
illness perceptions center on how they interpret and
about your treatment for an illness or a medical
cope with the effect of their symptoms on their qual-
ity of life. The concepts identified in this study are
2. Thinking back about this decision and other deci-
grounded in the patients’ descriptions of their own
sions related to your health care, to what extent doyou feel that you have shared in the decision mak-
experiences and illness perceptions.
Although we feel that a qualitative study was the
3. Thinking back over times when you faced a decision
best approach to meet our objective, this approach
about medical care, was there ever a time when you
does preclude quantitative analyses of the data and
wished you had a bigger role in the decision-making
assessment of the relative importance that patients
process? Why did you wish you had a large role?
4. Now, thinking back about times when you faced a
5. Azoulay E, Pochard F, Chevret S, et al. Half the family mem-
decision about medical care, was there ever an
bers of intensive care unit patients do not want to share in the
instance when you wished you were asked to make
decision-making process: a study in 78 French intensive care
fewer decisions or have less of a role in the decision-
units. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:1832–8.
6. Kiesler DJ, Auerbach SM. Optimal matches of patient prefer-
5. Have you ever disagreed with your doctor about a
ences for information, decision-making and interpersonal beha-
treatment plan that was suggested to you? How did
vior: evidence, models and interventions. Patient Educ Couns
6. Have you ever been told by a doctor to try a treat-
7. Say RE, Murtagh M, Thomson R. Patients’ preference for
ment option that was impractical for you? How did
involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review.
Patient Educ Couns 2006;60:102–14.
7. In a situation where there are choices about treat-
8. Devereaux PJ, Anderson DR, Gardner MJ, et al. Differences
ment, how important is the physician’s recommen-
between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagula-
tion in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. BMJ.
8. How important is it for the patient and doctor to
share a similar outlook, such as values about health
9. Elstein AS, Chapman GB, Knight SJ. Patients’ values and clini-
cal substituted judgments: the case of localized prostate cancer.
9. How important do you think it is for your doctor to
Health Psychol. 2005;24 Suppl:S85–2.
have a clear understanding of what issues are most
10. Montgomery AA, Fahey T. How do patients’ treatment prefer-
important to you when deciding which treatment
ences compare with those of clinicians? Qual Health Care. 2001;
10. How important is it that a physician clearly explains
11. Spoorenberg A, van Tubergen A, Landewe R, et al. Measuring
the financial costs of a course of treatment?
disease activity in ankylosing spondylitis: patient and physician
11. I will begin this set by asking you to talk about the
have different perspectives. Rheumatology. 2005;44:789–95.
pros and cons of having a patient participate in the
12. Suarez-Almazor ME, Conner-Spady B, Kendall CJ, Russell AS,
decision-making process. What are your thoughts
Skeith K. Lack of congruence in the ratings of patients’ health sta-
about having a patient be part of the decision?
tus by patients and their physicians. Med Decis Making. 2001;
12. Every treatment has a chance of helping as well as
a chance of causing side effects. Who should
13. Krueger RA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied
decide whether the treatment is worth the risk?
Research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1994.
13. In general, do you think there any barriers in our
14. Crabtree B, William MA. A qualitative approach to primary
health care system that make it difficult for a
care research: the long interview. Fam Med. 1991;23:145–51.
patient to participate in his or her health care?
15. Glaser B, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Stra-
14. What do you think could be done to improve the
tegies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine; 1967.
16. Miles M, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expan-ded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1994.
17. Weitzman EA. Software and qualitative research. In: Denzin
N, Lincoln Y, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. ThousandOaks (CA): Sage; 1999.
1. Strull WM, Lo B, Charles G. Do patients want to participate in
18. Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D, et al. Information
medical decision making? JAMA. 1984;252:2990–4.
needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer.
2. Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted RA. Not all patients
want to participate in decision making. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;
19. Davison BJ, Gleave ME, Goldenberg SL, Degner LF, Hoffart D,
Berkowitz J. Assessing information and decision preferences of
3. Funk LM. Who wants to be involved? Decision-making prefer-
men with prostate cancer and their partners. Cancer Nurs.
ences among residents of long-term care facilities. Can J Aging.
20. Janis IL, Mann L. Decision-Making: A Psychological Analysis
4. Deber RB, Kraetschmer N, Irvine J. What role do patients wish
of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. New York: Free Press; 1985.
to play in treatment decision making? Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:
21. Bradley EH, Bogardus ST, Tinetti ME, Inouye SK. Goal-setting
in clinical medicine. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:267–78.
538 • MEDICAL DECISION MAKING/SEP–OCT 2007
26 DIC 07 Actualización sobre Herpes Zoster Puesta al día sobre el tratamiento y la prevención del herpes zóster y la neuralgia posherpética. Dres. David W Wareham and Judith Breuer Desarrollo (Traducción y resumen objetivo: Dra. Marta Papponetti. Especialista en Medicina Interna.) El herpes zóster (HZ) es una manifestación clínica de la reactivación de la infección laten
Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005-2015 LOGISTICAL NOTE Employment Workshop Zagreb, Croatia June 15-16, 2009 Hotel ARCOTEL Allegra Branimirova 29 10 000 Zagreb VENUE OF THE MEETING The meeting will take place at hotel ARCOTEL Allegra, Branimirova 29, 10 000 Zagreb . Please note that the Croatian Government has made a block reservation of rooms in hot