Does place of residence have an influence on shared decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes in general practice?

Objective: In the last 20 years, patient involvement in clinical decision-making has continuously gained traction in scientific and clinical (including general practice, GP) discussions. Patients with chronic conditions in particular may benefit from active involvement. Referring to existing studies on shared decision making and regional differences; patients with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) were used as an example to investigate the perceived involvement during clinical decision making in general practice. Differences in treatment options based on the patients' place of residence (East- and West Germany) were compared. Methods: 501 West- (North-Rhine-Westphalia, NRW) and 338 East-German (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, MWP) patients with DM2 and HbA(1c) levels >= 8.0 were assessed during the cluster-randomised controlled trial DEBATE, which was conducted between 2011 and 2012. The questionnaire to measure participatory decision making (Q-PDM) was used in order to provide an estimate of their involvement in clinical decision making processes, and baseline data was analysed before intervention. The standardised Q-PDM summed value was compared among the different subgroups (i. e., place of residence, age, sex) using bivariate group analyses ( t tests), and a multivariate regression analysis was conducted. Results: Patients living in the MWP region perceived a higher level of involvement in GP decision making than NRW residents. Younger patients with DM2 showed higher Q-PDM summed values than older patients. When all variables, including 'GP practice' (number of patients per GP/cluster), were considered together in the multivariate regression analysis, the place of residence would no longer show an independent effect on perceived decision making. The expected difference between MWP and NRW (i. e. East/West Germany) could not be confirmed, while a significant difference remained with regard to age. Education, population density, sex and marital status did not show any relevant differences. Conclusion: Patient age remains an important factor influencing the perceived involvement in joint decision making and should be taken into account while implementing clinical decision making processes in the future. It is possible that patients of different age and with different chronic diseases may need different decision support offerings (e. g., educational videos, booklets or computer-based decision aids). Trainings in communication skills or in the implementation of patient-centred communication might be effective on the GP level to reduce possible barriers to shared decision making.