4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Patient preferences for medical decision making - Who really wants to participate?

期刊

MEDICAL CARE
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 335-341

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200003000-00010

关键词

patient participation; medical decision making; physician-patient relationship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES. TO identify the determinants of patient preferences for participation in medical decision making. METHODS. Data were analyzed for 2,197 patients from the Medical Outcomes Study, a 4-year observational study of patients with chronic disease (hypertension, diabetes, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and depression). Multivariate logistic regression models estimated the effects of patients' sociodemographic, clinical, psychosocial, and lifestyle characteristics on their decision-making preferences. RESULTS. A majority of the patients (69%) preferred to leave their medical decisions to their physicians. The odds for preferring an active role significantly decreased with age and increased with education. Women were more likely to be active than men (odds ratio [OR] = 1.44, P < 0.001). Compared with patients who only suffered with unsevere hypertension, those with severe diabetes (OR = 0.62, P = 0.04) and unsevere heart disease (OR = 0.45, P = 0.02) were less likely to prefer an active role. Patients with clinical depression were more likely to be active (OR = 1.64, P = 0.01). Patients pursuing active coping strategies had higher odds for an active role than passive copers, while those who placed higher value on their health were less likely to be active than those with low health value (OR = 0.59, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS. Although a majority of patients prefer to delegate decision making to physicians, preferences vary significantly by patient characteristics. Approaches to enhancing patient involvement will need to be flexible and accommodating to individual preferences in order to maximize the benefits of patient participation on health outcomes.

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