4.3 Article

Patients' Preferences regarding Shared Decision-Making in the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results from a Patient-Empowerment Study

Journal

DIGESTION
Volume 81, Issue 2, Pages 113-119

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000253862

Keywords

Inflammatory bowel disease; Shared decision-making; Patients' preferences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Shared decision-making is gaining favor in clinical practice, although the extent to which patients want to be involved in choosing their treatment varies substantially. Because data are lacking on the preferences of patients with chronic diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we wanted to assess IBD patients' preferences about being involved in such decisions. Methods: Adult IBD patients were asked to anonymously complete an online survey on their preferences. Non-parametric tests (chi(2)) were used to determine the relationship between responses and respondents. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 1,067 patients, 617 with Crohn's disease and 450 with ulcerative colitis. Patients' mean age was 43 (SD 13.7) years; the majority were female (66%). In total, 866 patients (81%) reported it as 'very important' to be actively involved in the decision-making process, and another 177 (17%) rated it as 'quite important'. When asked how their treatment could be improved, 537 patients (50%) wanted close, equitable collaboration with their physician. This preference was significantly associated with a disease duration of <= 8 years (p = 0.03). Gender and type of IBD were not significantly associated with patients' preferences. Conclusions: This study demonstrates IBD patients' desire to be actively involved in the decision-making process. Further research is needed on physicians' perspectives on shared decision-making, and on finding predictive factors for developing a model for shared decision-making in IBD. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available