Dataset Information

A Typology of Patients Based on Decision-Making Styles: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although previous research shows broad differences in the impact of online health information on patient-practitioner decision making, specific research is required to identify and conceptualize patient decision-making styles related to the use of online health information and to differentiate segments according to the influence of online information on patient decision making and interactions with health professionals.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate patients' decision making in relation to online health information and interactions with health care practitioners. We also aimed to present a typology of patients based on significant differences in their decision making.

Methods

We applied a large-scale cross-sectional research design using a survey. Data, generated using a questionnaire that was administered by companies specializing in providing online panels, were collected from random samples of baby boomers in the United Kingdom, the United States, and New Zealand. The total sample comprised 996 baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964, who had used the internet in the previous 6 months to search for and share health-related information. Data were analyzed using hierarchical cluster analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, as well as one-way analysis of variance, chi-square tests, and paired sample t tests.

Results

Analyses identified 3 key decision-making styles that served as the base for 4 unique and stable segments of patients with distinctive decision-making styles: the Collaborators (229/996, 23.0%), the Autonomous-Collaborators (385/996, 38.7%), the Assertive-Collaborators (111/996, 11.1%), and the Passives (271/996, 27.2%). Profiles were further developed for these segments according to key differences in the online health information behavior, demographics, and interactional behaviors of patients. The typology demonstrates that collaborative decision making is dominant among patients either in its pure form or in combination with autonomous or assertive decision making. In other words, most patients (725/996, 72.8%) show significant collaboration in their decision making with health care professionals. However, at times, patients in the combination Autonomous-Collaborative segment prefer to exercise individual autonomy in their decision making, and those in the combination Assertive-Collaborative segment prefer to be assertive with health professionals. Finally, this study shows that a substantial number of patients adopt a distinctly passive decision-making style (271/996, 27.2%).

Conclusions

The patient typology provides a framework for distinguishing practice-relevant and addressable segments with important implications for health care practitioners, including better-targeted communication programs for patients and more successful outcomes for health care services in the long term.

SUBMITTER: FitzPatrick MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6893560 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Typology of Patients Based on Decision-Making Styles: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

FitzPatrick Mary Anne MA Hess Alexandra Claudia AC Sudbury-Riley Lynn L Schulz Peter Johannes PJ

Journal of medical Internet research 20191120 11

<h4>Background</h4>Although previous research shows broad differences in the impact of online health information on patient-practitioner decision making, specific research is required to identify and conceptualize patient decision-making styles related to the use of online health information and to differentiate segments according to the influence of online information on patient decision making and interactions with health professionals.<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to investigate patients ...[more]

PMID: 31746770

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Due to a low birth rate and an aging population, Japan faces an increase in the number of elderly people without children living in single households. These elderly without a spouse and/or children encounter a lack of caregivers because most sources of care for the elderly in Japan are not provided by private agencies but by family members. However, family caregivers not only help with daily living but are also key participants in treatment decision making. The effect of family absence on treatment decision making has not been elucidated, although more elderly people will not have family members to make surrogate decisions on their behalf. OBJECTIVE:The aim is to understand the influence of family absence on treatment decision making by physicians through a cross-sectional online survey with three hypothetical vignettes of patients. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional online survey among Japanese physicians using three hypothetical vignettes. The first vignette was about a 65-year-old man with alcoholic liver cirrhosis and the second was about a 78-year-old woman with dementia, both of whom developed pneumonia with consciousness disturbance. The third vignette was about a 70-year-old woman with necrosis of her lower limb. Participants were randomly assigned to either of the two versions of the questionnaires-with family or without family-but methods were identical otherwise. Participants chose yes or no responses to questions about whether they would perform the presented medical procedures. RESULTS:Among 1112 physicians, 454 (40.8%) completed the survey; there were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between groups. Significantly fewer physicians had a willingness to perform dialysis (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.80; P=.002) and artificial ventilation (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35-0.75; P<.001) for a patient from vignette 1 without family. In vignette 2, fewer physicians were willing to perform artificial ventilation (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90; P=.02). In vignette 3, significantly fewer physicians showed willingness to perform wound treatment (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.84; P=.007), surgery (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22-0.57; P<.001), blood transfusion (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.66; P<.001), vasopressor (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34-0.72; P<.001), dialysis (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.59; P<.001), artificial ventilation (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15-0.40; P<.001), and chest compression (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.18-0.47; P<.001) for a patient without family. CONCLUSIONS:Elderly patients may have treatments withheld because of the absence of family, highlighting the potential importance of advance care planning in the era of an aging society with a declining birth rate.

Project description:BackgroundInstances of surrogate decision-making are expected to increase with the rise in hospitalised older adults in Japan. Few large-scale studies have comprehensively examined the entire surrogate decision-making process. This study aimed to gather information to assess the current state of surrogate decision-making in Japan.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted using online questionnaires. A total of 1000 surrogate decision-makers responded to the questionnaire. We examined the characteristics of surrogate decision-makers and patients, content of surrogate decision-making meeting regarding life-sustaining treatment between the doctors and surrogate decision-makers, extent of involvement of the various parties in the surrogate decision-making process, judgement grounds for surrogate decision-making, and frequency of involvement in the surrogate decision-making process.ResultsOf the participants, 70.5% were male and 48.3% were eldest sons. Only 7.6% of the patients had left a written record of their preferences and 48.8% of the surrogates reported no knowledge of the patient having expressed their prior intentions regarding medical care in any form. Respondents indicated that their family meetings with healthcare professionals mostly included the information recommended by guidelines in a surrogate decision-making meeting in Japan. Most participants reported a good understanding of the meeting content. Although many participants based their decisions on multiple grounds, surrogates' considerations may not adequately reflect respect for patient autonomy in Japan. Specifically, the eldest son considered his own preference more frequently than that of the other surrogate decision-makers. In 26.1% of the cases, either zero or one family meeting with healthcare professionals was held. In these cases, significantly fewer decisions involved the participation of healthcare professionals other than the doctor compared to cases with multiple meetings.ConclusionsSurrogate decisions in Japan are most commonly made by eldest sons and may not frequently consider the perspectives of other surrogates. The finding that patient preferences were rarely known suggests a role for increased advance care planning.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess patients' preferred roles in healthcare-related decision-making in a representative sample of the Portuguese population.DesignPopulation-based nationwide cross-sectional study.Setting and participantsA sample of Portuguese people 20 years or older were interviewed face-to-face using a questionnaire with the Problem-Solving Decision-Making scale.OutcomesThe primary outcome was patients' preferred role for each vignette of the problem-solving decision-making scale. Sociodemographic factors associated with the preferred roles were the secondary outcomes.Results599 participants (20-99 years, 53.8% women) were interviewed. Three vignettes of the Problem-Solving Decision-Making scale were compared: morbidity, mortality and quality of life. Most patients preferred a passive role for both the problem-solving and decision-making components of the scale, particularly for the mortality vignette (66.1% in the analysis of the three vignettes), although comparatively more opted to share decision in the decision-making component. For the quality of life vignette, a higher percentage of patients wanted a shared role (44.3%) than with the other two vignettes. In the problem-solving component, preferences were significantly associated with area of residence (p<0.001) and educational level (p=0.013), while in the decision-making, component preferences were associated with age (p=0.020), educational level (p=0.015) and profession (p<0.001).ConclusionsIn this representative sample of the Portuguese mainland population, most patients preferred a practitioner-controlling role for both the problem-solving and decision-making components. In a life-threatening situation, patients were more willing to let the doctor decide. In contrast, in a less serious situation, there is a greater willingness to participate in decision-making. We have found that shared decision-making is more acceptable to better-educated patients in the problem-solving component and to people who are younger, higher educated and employed, in the decision-making component.

Project description:BackgroundHormone therapy is one option for some types of prostate cancer. Shared decision making (SDM) is important in the decision making process, but SDM between prostate cancer patients receiving hormone therapy and physicians is not fully understood. This study tested hypotheses: "Patients' perception of SDM is associated with treatment satisfaction, mediated by satisfaction with physicians' explanations and perceived effective decision making" and "The amount of information provided to patients by physicians on diseases and treatment is associated with treatment satisfaction mediated by patients' perceived SDM and satisfaction with physicians' explanations."MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted using an online panel via a private research company in Japan. The participants in this study were patients registered with the panel who had received or were currently receiving hormone therapy for prostate cancer and physicians registered with the panel who were treating patients with prostate cancer. Measures used in this study included a nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, levels of satisfaction with physicians' explanations and treatment satisfaction, and effective decision making for patients (feeling the choice is informed, value-based, likely to be implemented and expressing satisfaction with the choice), and a Shared Decision Making Questionnaire for Doctors. The hypotheses were examined using path analysis.ResultsIn total, 124 patients and 150 physicians were included in the analyses. In keeping with our hypotheses, perceived SDM significantly correlated with the physicians' explanations and perceived effective decision making for patients, and satisfaction with physicians' explanations and perceived effective decision making for patients were both related to treatment satisfaction. Although the amount of information provided to patients was correlated with the perceived SDM, it was indirectly related to their satisfaction with physicians' explanations.ConclusionsWhen physicians encourage patients to be actively involved in making decisions about treatment through the SDM process while presenting a wide range of information at the start of hormone therapy, patients' effective decision making and physicians' explanations may be improved; consequently, the patients' overall treatment satisfaction may be improved. Physicians who treat patients with prostate cancer may have underestimated the importance of SDM before starting hormone therapy, even greater extent than patients.

Project description:Background: Choosing between deep brain stimulation (DBS), Levodopa-Carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG), or continuous subcutaneous Apomorphine infusion (CSAI) in advanced Parkinson's disease is a complex decision. It is paramount to combine evidence with the professional's expertise and the patient's preferences. The patient's preferences can be elicited and integrated into the treatment choice through shared decision-making (SDM). Objective: In this cross-sectional survey study we explored patient's involvement in decision-making and identified facilitators and barriers for shared decision-making (SDM) in advanced Parkinson from the patient's perspective. Methods: We invited 180 Dutch persons with Parkinson who started DBS, LCIG, or CSAI in the previous 3 years to complete a questionnaire. Questions covered three topics; (1) preferred and experienced roles in the decision process for an advanced treatment, (2) information needs to make a decision and actually received information, and (3) factors that had positively or negatively influenced shared decision-making (SDM). Results: One hundred and twenty one participants completed the questionnaire. The large majority preferred to be involved in the decision-making (93%), and most respondents had experienced an active role (85%). In about half of the respondents (47%), their preferred role did not match their experienced role; 28% had a more active role than they would have preferred. Although 77% perceived to be fully informed at the time of decision, only 41% stated they knew all three therapeutic options. Participants identified the most important facilitators for shared decision-making (SDM) at the patient's level (i.e., perceiving the decision to be his own choice), at the neurologist's level (i.e., having expertise on all treatment options, and taking time for the decision), and within the professional-patient relationship (i.e., trust and having an open discussion). The main barriers for shared decision-making (SDM) existed at the patient's level (i.e., perceiving there is no choice), neurologist's level (own treatment preference), and organizational level (i.e., no research available that compares treatments, multiple professionals involved, and lack of consultation time). Conclusions: Patients want to be involved and feel involved when choosing an advanced treatment, but often do not know all treatment options. Implementation of true patient involvement needs personalized information provision on all treatment options and improvement on how this information is communicated.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision making is a process where patients and clinicians collaborate to make treatment choices based on the patients' preferences and best available evidence. The implementation of shared decision making remains limited for patients with psychotic disorders despite being recommended at policy level, being advocated as ethical right and wanted by the patient's. A barrier to implementation that is often mentioned is reduced decision-making capacity among patients. The challenges of implementing shared decision making highlights a need for more knowledge on shared decision making for these patients. Moreover, the association between patient-related characteristics and shared decision making is unclear, and further research have been suggested. More knowledge of factors associated with involvement in shared decision making can enhance understanding and help to empower patients in the decision-making process. The current study examined the extent of reported shared decision making among patients with a psychotic disorder in mental health care and factors associated with shared decision making.MethodsThis study included 305 participants with a psychotic disorder from 39 clinical inpatient and outpatient sites across Norway. Shared decision making was assessed using the CollaboRATE survey. A linear mixed model was estimated to assess characteristics associated with shared decision making scores.ResultsThe CollaboRATE mean score was 6.3 (ranging from 0 to 9), the top score was 14.1% and increased global satisfaction with services was significantly associated with a higher level of shared decision making (regression coefficient 0.27, 95% confidence interval (0.23; 0.32), p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe low top score shows that few patients felt that they received the highest possible quality of shared decision making, indicating that many patients found room for improvement. This suggests that services for patients with psychotic disorders should be designed to give them a greater role in decision making. Shared decision making might play a key role in mental health care, ensuring that patients with psychotic disorders are satisfied with the services provided.Trial registrationNCT03271242, date of registration: 5 Sept. 2017.

Dataset Information

A Typology of Patients Based on Decision-Making Styles: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Typology of Patients Based on Decision-Making Styles: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets