Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T07:27:01.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence-Informed Patient Choice: Practical Issues of Involving Patients in Decisions About Health Care Technologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Vikki A. Entwistle ,
Trevor A. Sheldon ,
Amanda Sowden  and
Ian S. Watt
Vikki A. Entwistle
Affiliation:
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
Trevor A. Sheldon
Affiliation:
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
Amanda Sowden
Affiliation:
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
Ian S. Watt
Affiliation:
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evidence-informed patient choice involves providing people with research-based information about the effectiveness of health care options and promoting their involvement in decisions about their treatment. Although the concept seems desirable, the processes and outcomes of evidence-informed patient choice are poorly understood, and it should be carefully evaluated.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , Spring 1998 , pp. 212 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Altman, D. G.The scandal of poor medical research. British Medical Journal, 1994, 308, 283–84.Google Scholar
2.Audit Commission. What seems to be the matter? Communication between hospitals and patients. London: HMSO, 1993.Google Scholar
3.Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., et al. The effects of message framing on mammography utilisation. Health Psychology, 1995,14,178–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Barry, M. D., Fowler, F. J., Mulley, A. G., et al. Patient reactions to a program designed to facilitate patient participation in treatment decisions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Medical Care, 1995, 33, 771–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Bartholome, W. G.A revolution in understanding: How ethics has transformed health care decision making. Quality Review Bulletin, 1992 (01), 18, 6–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Blume, S.Methods to assess the social, ethical and legal impact of health care technologies. Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Stockholm, 06 5,1995.Google Scholar
7.Brett, A. S., & McCullough, L. B.When patients request specific interventions: Defining the limits of the physician’s obligation. New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 315, 1347–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Brock, D. W., & Wartinan, S. A.When competent patients make irrational choices. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 322,1595–99.Google Scholar
9.Brody, D. S.The patient’s role in clinical decision making. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1980, 93, 718–22.Google Scholar
10.Cavaliere, D., Scorpiglione, N., Belfiglio, , et al. Quality assessment of randomised clinical trials on medical treatment of diabetic neuropathy. Diabetic Nutrition and Metabolism, 1994, 7, 287–94.Google Scholar
11.Collee, J.On the dangers of media appeals to save sick children’s lives. The Observer (Ufe), 07 2,1995, 62.Google Scholar
12.Deber, R. B., & Goel, V.Using explicit decision rules to manage issues of justice, risk and ethics in decision analysis: When is it rational not to maximise expected utility? Medical Decision Making, 1990, 10,181–94.Google Scholar
13.Degner, L. F., & Sloan, J. A.Decision making during serious illness: What role do patients really want to play? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1992, 45, 941–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Department of Health. The Patient's Charter. London: HMSO, 1991.Google Scholar
15.Dowie, J. Evidenced based, cost effective and preference driven medicine: Decision analysis based medical decision making the prerequisite. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1996, 104–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Durant, J., Evans, G., & Thomas, G.Public understanding of science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1992, 1, 161–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P.The public understanding of science. Nature, 1989, 340, 11–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Eraker, S. A., & Sox, H.Assessment of patients' preferences for therapeutic outcomes. Medical Decision Making, 1981, 1, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Evidence Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence based medicine: A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992, 268, 2420–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Fahey, T., Griffith, S., & Peters, T. J.Evidence based purchasing: Understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 1995, 311, 1056–60.Google Scholar
21.Fallowfield, L., Hall, A., Maguire, G. P., & Baum, M.Psychological outcomes of different treatment policies in women with early breast cancer outside a clinical trial. British Medical Journal, 1990, 301, 4575–80.Google Scholar
22.Fallowfield, L., Hall, A., Maguire, G. P., et al. Psychological effects of being offered choice of surgery for breast cancer. British Medical Journal, 1994, 309, 448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Farrell, C., & Gilbert, H.Patient empowerment. Report of a workshop held at Scarman House, University of Warwick, April 5–6, 1995. London: King’s Fund, 1995.Google Scholar
24.Fischoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values. In Wallsten, T. S. (ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behaviour. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980, 117–41.Google Scholar
25.Frewer, L. J., & Shepherd, R.Attributing information to different sources: Effects on the perceived qualities of information, on the perceived relevance of information, and on attitude formation. Public Understanding of Science, 1994, 3, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Haines, A., & Jones, R.Implementing findings of research. British Medical Journal, 1994, 308, 1488–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Helman, C. G.Culture, health and illness, 2nd ed.London: Wright, 1990.Google Scholar
28.Hope, T.Evidence based patient choice: Report to the Anglia and Oxford Regional Health Authority into the use of evidence based information for enhancing patient choice. Oxford: Anglia and Oxford Regional Health Authority, 1995.Google Scholar
29.Hyatt, J.In it together: Promoting information for shared decision making. London: King's Fund, 1994.Google Scholar
30.Johanson, R. B.Polyglycolic acid vs catgut for perineal repair. Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database, 1995, Issue 1.Google Scholar
31.Lantos, J.Informed consent: The whole truth for patients? Cancer, 1993, 72 (suppl.) 2811–15.Google Scholar
32.Malenka, D. J., Baron, J. A., Johansen, S., et al. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1993, 8, 543–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Mazur, D. J., & Hickam, D. H.Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medicine clinic. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1990, 5, 402–05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Mazur, D. J., & Hickam, D. H.The effect of physicians' explanations on patients' treatment preferences. Medical Decision Making, 1994, 14, 255–58.Google Scholar
35.Mazur, D. J., & Merz, J. F.How the manner of presentation of data influences older patients in determining their treatment preferences. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1993, 41, 223–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Meredith, P.Patient participation in decision making and consent to surgery. Sociology of Health and Illness, 1993, 15, 315–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Mooney, G., & Lange, M.Antenatal screening: What constitutes benefit? Social Science and Medicine, 1993, 37, 873–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Morris, J., & Ingham, R.Choice of surgery for early breast cancer: Psychosocial considerations. Social Science and Medicine, 1988, 27, 1257–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Morris, J., & Royle, G. T.Offering patients a choice of surgery for early breast cancer: A reduction in anxiety and depression in patients and their husbands. Social Science and Medicine, 1988, 26, 583–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.National Health Service in Scotland. The patient's charter: A charter for health. Edinburgh: Scottish Office, 1991.Google Scholar
41.Neuberger, J.The public face of outcomes. Health Service Journal, 1993 (02. 23), 19.Google Scholar
42.NHS Executive. Priorities and planning guidance, 1996–1997. London: NHS Executive, 1995.Google Scholar
43.Oakley, A.Essays on women, medicine and health. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
44.O'Connor, A. M.Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1988, 42, 119–26.Google Scholar
45.Office of Technology Assessment. Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.Google Scholar
46.Oliver, S. R.How can health service users contribute to the NHS research and development programme? British Medical Journal, 1995, 310, 1318–20.Google Scholar
47.Petersen, H.What do we miss with the traditional efficacy/safety evaluation? Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 1993, 28 (suppl), 5–7.Google Scholar
48.Rosenberg, W., & Donald, A.Evidence based medicine: An approach to clinical problem solving. British Medical Journal, 1995, 310, 1122–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49.Royce, R. G.Observations on the NHS internal market: Will the dodo get the last laugh? British Medical Journal, 1995, 311, 431–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50.Ruta, D. A.,Garratt, A. M.,Leng, M.,Russell, I. T., & MacDonald, L. M.A new approach to the measurement of quality of life: The patient generated index. Medical Care, 1994, 32, 1109–26.Google Scholar
51.Ryan, M., & Shackley, P.Assessing the benefits of health care: How far should we go? Quality in Health Care, 1995, 4, 207–13.Google Scholar
52.Schwartz, R., & Grubb, A. Why Britain can't afford informed consent. Hastings Center Report, 1985, 19–25.Google Scholar
53.Shackley, P., & Ryan, M.What is the role of the consumer in health care? Journal of Social Policy, 1994, 23, 517–41.Google Scholar
54.Shanner, L.Informed consent and inadequate medical information. Lancet, 1995, 346, 251.Google Scholar
55.Siegler, M.Falling off the pedestal: What is happening to the traditional doctor-patient relationship? Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 1993, 68, 461–67.Google Scholar
56.Silverstein, M. D.,Stocking, C. B.,Antel, J. P., et al. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and life-sustaining therapy: Patients' desires for information, participation in decision making and life-sustaining therapy. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 1991, 66, 906–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57.Siminoff, L. A., & Fetting, J. H.Effects of outcome framing on treatment decisions in the real world: Impact of framing on adjuvant breast cancer decisions. Medical Decision Making, 1989, 9, 262–71.Google Scholar
58.Smith, R.The ethics of ignorance. Journal of Medical Ethics, 1992, 18, 117–118, 134.Google Scholar
59.Sutherland, H. J.,Llewilyn-Thomas, H. A.,Lockwood, G. A., et al. Cancer patients: Their desire for information and participation in treatment decisions. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1989, 82, 260–63.Google Scholar
60.Van den Brul, C.Perceptions of science: How scientists and others view the media reporting of science. Oxford: Nuffield College, 1994.Google Scholar
61.Wagner, E. H.,Barrett, P.,Barry, M. J., et al. The effect of a shared decision making program on rates of surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia: Pilot results. Medical Care, 1995, 33, 765–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62.Waterworth, S., & Luker, K. A.Reluctant collaborators: Do patients want to be involved in decisions concerning care? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1990, 15, 971–76.Google Scholar
63.Wills, C. E., & Moore, C. F.Judgement processes for medication acceptance: Self reports and configural information use. Medical Decision Making, 1994, 14, 137–45.Google Scholar