Article

Decision-making role preferences among patients with HIV: associations with patient and provider characteristics and communication behaviors.

Johns Hopkins University, 2024 East Monument Street, Suite 2-600, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 02/2010; 25(6):517-23. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-010-1275-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A preference for shared decision-making among patients with HIV has been associated with better health outcomes. One possible explanation for this association is that patients who prefer a more active role in decision-making are more engaged in the communication process during encounters with their providers. Little is known, however, about patient and provider characteristics or communication behaviors associated with patient decision-making preferences in HIV settings.
We examined patient and provider characteristics and patient-provider communication behaviors associated with the decision-making role preferences of patients with HIV.
Cross-sectional analysis of patient and provider questionnaires and audio recorded clinical encounters from four sites.
A total of 45 providers and 434 of their patients with HIV.
Patients were asked how they prefer to be involved in the decision-making process (doctor makes all/most decisions, patients and doctors share decisions, or patients make decisions alone). Measures of provider and patient communication behaviors were coded from audio recordings using the Roter Interaction Analysis System.
Overall, 72% of patients preferred to share decisions with their provider, 23% wanted their provider to make decisions, and 5% wanted to make decisions themselves. Compared to patients who preferred to share decisions with their provider, patients who preferred their provider make decisions were less likely to be above the age of 60 (ARR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.89) and perceive high quality provider communication about decision-making (ARR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.73), and more likely to have depressive symptoms (ARR 1.92, 95% CI 1.07-3.44). There was no significant association between patient preferences and measures of provider or patient communication behavior.
Observed measures of patient and provider communication behavior were similar across all patient decision-making role preferences, indicating that it may be difficult for providers to determine these preferences based solely on communication behavior. Engaging patients in open discussion about decision-making preferences may be a more effective approach.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
160 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of client preferences on treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome. Our search of the literature resulted in 35 empirical articles describing 33 unique clinical trials that either randomized some clients to an active choice condition (shared decision making condition or choice of treatment) or assessed client preferences. Clients who were involved in shared decision making, chose a treatment condition, or otherwise received their preferred treatment evidenced higher treatment satisfaction (ESd = .32; p < .001), increased completion rates (ESOR = 1.37; ESd = .17; p < .001), and superior clinical outcome (ESd = .19; p < .0001), compared to clients who were not involved in shared decision making, did not choose a treatment condition, or otherwise did not receive their preferred treatment. Although the effect sizes are modest in magnitude, they were generally consistent across several potential moderating variables including study design (preference versus active choice), psychoeducation (informed versus uninformed), setting (inpatient versus outpatient), client diagnosis (mental health versus other), and unit of randomization (client versus provider). Our findings highlight the clinical benefit of assessing client preferences, providing treatment choices when two or more efficacious options are available, and involving clients in treatment-related decisions when treatment options are not available.
    Clinical Psychology Review 08/2014; 34(6). DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.002 · 7.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Systematic review of studies that investigate the communication between patients and health professionals with the application of the RIAS methodology. Methods: Keyword Roter Interaction Analysis System was searched in the following bibliographic resources: Academic Search Complete, Current Contents, ISI Proceedings, PubMed, Elsevier, SpringerLink, Web of Science, RCAAP, Solo and the official RIAS site. Selection period: 2006 to 2011. Studies were selected using multicriteria dichotomous analysis and organized according to PRISMA. Results: Identification of 1,262 articles (455 unrepeated). 34 articles were selected for analysis, distributed by the following health professions: family medicine and general practitioners (14), pediatricians (5), nurses (4), geneticists (3), carers of patients with AIDS (2), oncologists (2), surgeons (2), anesthetists (1) and family planning specialists (1). The RIAS is scarcely used and publicized within the scope of healthcare in Portuguese speaking countries. Discussion: Main themes studied include the influence of tiredness, anxiety and professional burnout on communication and the impact of specific training actions on professional activities. The review enabled the identification of the main strengths and weaknesses of synchronous and dyadic verbal communication within the provision of healthcare. Conclusion: Scientific investigation of the communication between health professionals and patients using RIAS has produced concrete results. An improvement is expected in health outcomes through the application of the RIAS.
    Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira 03/2014; 60(2):156-172. DOI:10.1590/1806-9282.60.02.014 · 0.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of patient information leaflets (PILs) is to inform patients about the administration, precautions and potential side effects of their prescribed medication. Despite European Commission guidelines aiming at increasing readability and comprehension of PILs little is known about the potential risk information has on patients. This article explores patients' reactions and subsequent behavior towards risk information conveyed in PILs of commonly prescribed drugs by general practitioners (GPs) for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, hypertension or hypercholesterolemia; the most frequent cause for consultations in family practices in Germany.
    BMC Family Practice 10/2014; 15(1):163. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-15-163 · 1.74 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
19 Downloads
Available from
Jun 3, 2014