4.4 Article

The impact of individualized evidence-based decision support on aneurysm patients' decision making, ideals of autonomy, and quality of life

期刊

MEDICAL DECISION MAKING
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 751-762

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08321680

关键词

decision analysis; vascular surgical procedures; patient satisfaction; physician-patient relations; autonomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. A major challenge in surgery is the integration of evidence-based medicine and patient autonomy. The authors present a randomized trial studying the effect of an individualized evidence-based brochure (IB) on patients' autonomous behavior, patients' ideals of autonomy, and quality of life. Method. Patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aneurysm and their surgeon were randomized to receive a general brochure (GB) or an IB presenting survival information and a ranking of the treatment strategies. Before and after receiving the brochure, patients filled out questionnaires on their behavior during the consultation, ideals of patient autonomy, and quality of life. Surgeons answered a short checklist evaluating the consultation. Results. One hundred patients participated, 49 in the intervention, 51 in the control group. The IB group had a better understanding of important issues in the treatment decision, had prepared more questions, and was less satisfied with the duration of the consultation. Their impression that the surgeon perceived them more as a medical problem than a patient with a problem increased. They agreed less with the surgeon's advice and lost some of their belief in the doctor knows best.'' Beforehand, the IB group had a stronger preference for patient-based decisions, but afterward they displayed more surgeon-based decisions. No effects were seen on patients' quality of life. Conclusions. Individualized evidence-based information stimulated patients' active involvement but in the context of our study led to less patient-based decisions. Patient-made decisions and patient autonomy should, however, not be equated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据