中药注射剂抗肿瘤治疗的医患偏好及共同决策比较分析

目的 对中药注射剂抗肿瘤治疗的医患偏好及共同决策现状进行比较分析,为相关研究和临床实践提供参考。方法 于2020年10月—12月对上海市9家三级医院的肿瘤治疗相关科室的185名医生及347名住院肺癌患者开展问卷调查,通过离散选择实验调查医患对中药注射剂抗肿瘤治疗方案的偏好属性,并采用条件Logit模型及混合Logit模型对医患的偏好属性进行分析,采用医患共同决策测量工具对决策行为进行现状描述与比较分析。结果 医生更加关注恶心呕吐及其他毒副反应,患者更加关注疾病控制率及自付治疗费用。而在偏好差异的基础上,78.4%的医生以及90.2%的患者认为其参与的临床决策模式为共同决策模式。结论 医患之间的偏好属性及决策模式存在差异,并会在一定程度上影响患者满意度及和谐医患关系。建议激发医生医疗服务积极性,促进医患共同决策。     

Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions

CONTENT: Shared medical decision making is a process by which patients and providers consider outcome probabilities and patient preferences and reach a health care decision based on mutual agreement. Shared decision making is best used for problems involving medical uncertainty. During the process the provider-patient dyad considers treatment options and consequences and explores the fit of expected benefits and consequences of treatment with patient preferences for various outcomes. This paper reviews the literature on shared medical decision making. Several questions are considered. Although several studies suggest that patients do not want to be involved in decision making, these studies typically fail to separate decisions about technical aspects of treatment from preferences for outcomes. There is considerable evidence that patients want to be consulted about the impact of treatment. Studies on the acceptability of shared decision making for physicians have produced inconsistent results. Shared decision making is more acceptable to younger and better-educated patients. It remains unclear whether shared decision making requires expensive video presentations or whether the same results can be obtained with simpler methods, such as the decision board. We conclude that shared medical decision making is an important development in health care. More research is necessary to identify the effects of shared decision making on patient satisfaction and health outcomes. Further, more research is necessary in order to evaluate the most effective methods for engaging patients in decisions about their own health care.     

Patient involvement in clinical decision making: the effect of GP attitude on patient satisfaction

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates general practitioners' (GPs) and patients' attitudes to shared decision making, and how these attitudes affect patient satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Sharing of information and decisions in the consultation is largely accepted as the ideal in general practice. Studies show that most patients prefer to be involved in decision making and shared decision making is associated with patient satisfaction, although preferences vary. Still we know little about how the interaction of GP and patients' attitudes affects patient satisfaction. One such study was conducted in the USA, but comparative studies are lacking. DESIGN: Questionnaire survey distributed through GPs. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The results are based on the combined questionnaires of 41 GPs and 829 of their patients in the urban municipality of Bergen in the western part of Norway. Main variables studied The data were collected using a nine-item survey instrument constructed to measure attitudes towards patient involvement in medical consultations. The patients were also asked to rate their satisfaction with their GP. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The patients had a strong preference for shared decision making. The GPs also generally preferred shared decision making, but to a lesser degree than the patients, which is the opposite of the findings of the US study. There was a positive effect of the GP's attitude towards shared decision making on patient satisfaction, but no significant effect of congruence of attitudes between patient and GP on patient satisfaction. The suggested explanation is that GPs that are positive to sharing decisions are more responsive to patients' needs and therefore satisfy patients even when the patient's attitude differs from the GPs' attitude. Hence, although some patients do prefer a passive role, it is important to promote positive attitudes towards patient involvement in medical consultations.     

From shared decision making to patient-centered decision making

ABSTRACT: Shared decision making involving patients and physicians has gained adherents in Israel and other countries and has many virtues. This commentary argues that medical decision making should ideally be shaped by the particular needs and preferences of the patient, which may be to share in decision making, or at times call for a physician to assume full responsibility for decisions or, at the other extreme, to support and guide a patient who wishes to decide autonomously on what to do.This is a commentary on http://www.ijhpr.org/content/1/1/5/     

Implications of patient and physician decision making: an illustration in treatment options for coronary artery disease

The objective of this study was to explore the extent to which patients and physicians desire patient participation in medical decision making. The cross-sectional pilot study involved 92 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and 50 physicians involved in treating patients with CAD. Desire to participate in making the decision between treatment options for CAD and factors that influence the decision were assessed. Physicians prefer to participate in shared decision making more often than do the patients (P = .016). When faced with clinical scenarios requiring a decision to be made between percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass graft, patients and physicians tended to defer to one another to make the decision. Multinomial logistic regression models showed that the overriding factor influencing patient decision making was the physician's opinion (P < .0001) and the patient's preference was the overriding factor influencing physician decision making (P < .0001). Because patients tend to defer to physicians when making medical decisions, it is incumbent upon the physician to assure that the physician-patient dialogue reflects important information about the procedures (coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) and that preferences are acknowledged. This may impact greatly on achieving satisfactory health outcomes and patient satisfaction.     

Are patients' decision‐making preferences being met?

Objective To investigate the information and decision‐making expectations of general practice patients during real life consultations. Design Post‐consultation, quantitative patient preference and enablement questionnaire. Setting and participants Patients attending for routine appointments in general practice surgeries in Oxfordshire, UK. Results Thirteen Oxfordshire general practitioners (GPs) volunteered to take part and a total of 171 patients completed and returned the questionnaire. Between a quarter and one‐third of patients reported receiving less information than they desired, particularly in relation to the risks and benefits of medical treatments. Patients who preferred the doctor to make decisions for them (35%), were more likely to have their preferences met (64%) compared with patients wishing to share decisions (47%) or make their own (18%) who were less likely to achieve this role (52 and 41%, respectively). However, it could not be demonstrated unequivocally that these differences were statistically significant. In total, 61% of patients perceived that they achieved their preferred decision‐making role. No significant differences were found in post‐consultation enablement scores between any of the decision preference groups. Patients' assessments indicated that some doctors were more successful at achieving congruence than others. Conclusion The decision‐making preferences of general practice patients tend to vary. However, there was a substantial mismatch between the stated preferences of patients for the role they wanted to have in decision‐making and what they felt actually took place in their consultation. Therefore, it remains a challenge for doctors to match their consultation style to the decision‐making preferences of individual patients.     

Patient-physician fit: an exploratory study of a multidimensional instrument.

BACKGROUND: Patients face difficulty selecting physicians because they have little knowledge of how physicians' behaviors fit with their own preferences. OBJECTIVE: To develop scales of patient and physician behavior preferences and determine whether patient-physician fit is associated with patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Two cross-sectional surveys of patients and providers. SETTING: Ambulatory clinics at a university medical center. Participants. Eight general internists, 14 family physicians, and 193 patients. MEASUREMENTS: Two instruments were developed to measure 6 preferences for physician behaviors: 1) considering nonmedical aspects of the patient's life, 2) familiarity with herbal medicine, 3) physician decision making, 4) providing information, 5) considering the patient's religion, and 6) treating what the patient perceives as his or her problem. Patients reported how they would prefer physicians to behave, and physicians reported how they preferred to behave. Patients also rated satisfaction with their physician. RESULTS: Post hoc tests found that as a group, patients scored higher than physicians in preference for the physician to provide information and lower in preference for considering nonmedical aspects of the patient's life and religious beliefs. As hypothesized, preference differences accounted for significant variance in satisfaction in overall tests (19% in the family medicine patients and 25% in internal medicine patients). Greater satisfaction was associated with fit between patient and physician preferences for physician decision making (in the internal medicine patients) and with fit in providing information and consideration of religion (in family medicine patients) CONCLUSIONS: Patients often prefer behaviors other than how their physicians prefer to behave. Preference fit is associated with enhanced patient satisfaction. Physicians should attend to whether patients want religion and other nonmedical aspects of their lives considered. Health plans may wish to provide tools to help patients choose physicians by fit.     

Observing decision‐making in the general practice consultation: who makes which decisions?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate opportunities for, and types of decision making in the general practice (primary care) consultation, and examine differences in skills of those doctors who are successful at meeting their patients' preferences and those who are less successful. DESIGN: Observation study of doctor-patient consultations in general practice. PARTICIPANTS: Patients attending for routine appointments in 12 general practice surgeries across Oxfordshire. METHODS: A total of 212 doctor-patient consultations were video-recorded. The patients involved completed a questionnaire to elicit their perceptions of how decisions were made. The video-taped recordings were coded with a new instrument, the Evidence Based Patient Choice Instrument (EBPCI), to classify the number and type of decision-making opportunities arising during each consultation. A total of 149 recordings were coded using the Oxbridge Rating Scale to assess the doctors' consultation styles. RESULTS: There was a range of decision-making opportunities in addition to those involving medical treatment. With the exception of 'fitness for work', decisions were generally 'doctor led'. There was only moderate agreement between patient perceptions of their level of involvement in decision making and the objective ratings using the EBPCI. There was wide variation in the ability of doctors to meet their patients' preferences for involvement. CONCLUSIONS: There are many decisions made in primary care consultations, in addition to those about medical treatments, in which patients could be involved to a greater extent than they currently are. Some doctors are significantly better than others at meeting different patients' preferences for their decision-making role. Patients' perceptions of shared decision making appears to be influenced by the doctors' general consultation skills.     

The default effect in end-of-life medical treatment preferences.

BACKGROUND: Living wills are intended to preserve patient autonomy, but recent studies suggest that they do not always have their desired effect. One possible explanation is that living wills do not capture the authentic preferences of the patients who write them but instead reflect transient contextual effects on preferences. PURPOSE: Two experiments examined whether end-of-life treatment preferences expressed in a living will were influenced by the presence of default options. METHOD: College students participated in 2 Web-based questionnaire experiments (Ns = 182 and 51). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 or 3 default conditions. RESULTS: In experiment 1, participants expressed significantly different treatment preferences in 3 normatively equivalent, check box-formatted living wills that were either positively worded ("indicate medical treatments you would want administered"), negatively worded ("indicate treatments you would want withheld"), or of forced-choice format (P = 0.01). Participants expressed a stronger preference to receive treatment in the negatively worded document than in the positively worded document as a consequence of preferring the default option in both cases. Participants in experiment 2 were also influenced by the presence of a default option, but this time, while writing narrative living wills after viewing 1 of 2 sample living wills. In this experiment, the sample living will represented the default preference. The participants' own living wills tended to express preferences similar to those in the sample (P = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: The default manipulations in both experiments had potent but transient effects and influenced what participants wrote in their living wills but not their responses to later medical scenarios. Expression of end-of-life treatment preferences appears to be temporarily constructed from the decision-making context. These results have implications for surrogate decision making and the use of the living will as a tool to preserve patient autonomy.     

A Roadmap for Increasing the Usefulness and Impact of Patient-Preference Studies in Decision Making in Health: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force

Many qualitative and quantitative methods are readily available to study patient preferences in health. These methods are now being used to inform a wide variety of decisions, and there is a growing body of evidence showing studies of patient preferences can be used for decision making in a wide variety of contexts. This ISPOR Task Force report synthesizes current good practices for increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We provide the ISPOR Roadmap for Patient Preferences in Decision Making that invites patient-preference researchers to work with decision makers, patients and patient groups, and other stakeholders to ensure that studies are useful and impactful. The ISPOR Roadmap consists of 5 key elements: (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) population, (4) method, and (5) impact. In this report, we define these 5 elements and provide good practices on how patient-preference researchers and others can actively contribute to increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We also present a set of key questions that can support researchers and other stakeholders (eg, funders, reviewers, readers) to assess efforts that promote the ongoing impact (both intended and unintended) of a particular preference study and additional studies in the future.     

Do patients' communication behaviors provide insight into their preferences for participation in decision making?

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine report "Crossing the Quality Chasm' encourages physicians to tailor their approaches to care according to each patient's individual preferences for participation in decision making. How physicians should determine these preferences is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess whether judgments of patient communication behaviors, either globally or individually, can yield insight into patient preferences for participation in decision making. METHODS: Using questionnaire responses to 3 items about the desired level of participation in decision making from a communication study involving 886 audiotaped visits between older patients and surgeons, the authors purposively selected 25 patients who preferred a large role and 25 who preferred a small role in decision making. Two independent raters listened to the audiotapes and coded them for the presence of 7 communication behaviors (question asking, information behavior, initiating, statements of preference, processing, resistance, deference). On the basis of their listening and coding, raters judged patient preferences for participation in decision making. RESULTS: Neither rater accurately judged preferences for participation in decision making beyond chance agreement (kappa statistics: rater 1 = 0.16, rater 2 = 0.20). Inter-rater reliability for the communication behaviors was also generally poor. Area-under-the-curve values for all communication behaviors hovered around 0.50, indicating that none of the behaviors had adequate power to discriminate between patients preferring large versus small roles. CONCLUSION: Patient preferences for participation in decision making cannot be reliably judged during routine visits based on judgments of patient communication behaviors. Engaging patients in a discussion of preferences for decision making may be the best way to determine the role each wants to play in any given decision.     

Shared decision-making in medical practice--patient-centred communication skills

Most patients (70%) want to participate actively in important healthcare decisions, the rest (30%) prefer the doctor to make the decision for them. Shared decision-making provides more patient satisfaction, a better quality of life and contributes to a better doctor-patient relationship. Patients making their own decision generally make a well considered and medically sensible choice. In shared decision-making the doctor asks many open questions, gives and requests much information, asks if the patient wishes to participate in the decision-making and explicitly takes into account patient circumstances and preferences. Shared decision-making should remain an individual choice and should not become a new dogma.     

The role of physicians' recommendations in medical treatment decisions.

BACKGROUND: A shift away from the medical paternalism of the past has occurred, and today, the law and ethics advocate that physicians share decision-making responsibility with their patients. It is unclear, however, what the appropriate role of physicians' recommendations ought to be in this new shared decision-making paradigm. One way to approach this question is to assess the influence of physicians' recommendations. OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors examine the influence of physicians' recommendations on hypothetical treatment decisions. Do physicians' recommendations influence treatment decisions in scenarios where the decision that maximizes health is obvious and apparent to subjects? Do recommendations pull subjects away from the treatment choice that they otherwise prefer (based on their decision when unaware of the physicians' recommendation)? DESIGN: An experimental web questionnaire presented hypothetical medical treatment scenarios in which the treatment choice that maximized health was obvious. Across scenarios, the authors varied physicians' recommendations in 3 ways: (1) physicians' recommendations supporting what maximized health, (2) physicians' recommendations that went against what maximized health, and (3) no physicians' recommendation. The participants were 102 volunteers. RESULTS: Hypothetical treatment decisions were significantly influenced by physicians'recommendations (P < 0.0001), and physicians'recommendations against the decision that maximized health pulled subjects away from the treatment decision that they made when no recommendation was given (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Physicians' recommendations can lead people to make decisions that go against what is best and against what they would otherwise prefer. Physicians must take care in making recommendations and should incorporate patient preferences into their recommendations.     

Participation in medical decision making: the patients' perspective.

PURPOSE: Variability in reports of patients' preferences to participate in decision making may be due in part to a lack of understanding about how patients conceptualize their participation. The authors sought to learn more about how patients view their involvement in decisions related to their health care. METHODS: The authors conducted individual interviews to allow patients to frame the decision-making process from their own perspective. The constant comparative-method approach to analysis was employed to ensure that the analysts defined the codes in a consistent manner. RESULTS: Twenty-six persons were interviewed. The main themes discussed by the participants reflecting how they viewed their involvement in medical decision making are the following: 1) decision making is often an ongoing process in which patient participation may change over time, 2) decision making is performed within an extended social context, 3) the decisions patients report being involved in are often distinct from those traditionally studied (choice of treatment or screening strategies), 4) patient involvement in decision making occurs in response to physicians' recommendations, and 5) patients make choices in the context of their specific illness perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in this study view their participation in decision making as including ideas distinct from those traditionally discussed by researchers. These findings suggest that the variability in patient participation noted in previous studies may be due in part to limitations in study design.     

The development of picture cards and their use in ascertaining characteristics of Chinese surgical patients'' decision-making preferences

AIM: This exploratory pilot study developed and tested the validity of picture cards as a strategy to ascertain patients' desired participation in decision making. These were then used to ascertain characteristics of Hong Kong Chinese patients' decision-making preferences for surgery. VALIDATION OF TOOL: Two sets of analyses tested the validity of picture cards in an Australian and Hong Kong Chinese population. First, the ratings of the two groups of participants using the picture cards for three scenarios (severe, moderate and mild medical conditions) were correlated with mean ratings of three decision-making subscales of a self-report questionnaire for the three scenarios. Second, a 3 (Scenario) x 2 (Ethnic Group) mixed anova examined whether the picture cards are sensitive to differences relating to severity of medical conditions and ethnicity. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of initially 35 Hong Kong and 24 Australian patients was used to validate the picture card tool. A convenience sample of a further 186 Hong Kong Chinese surgical inpatients used the tool. DESIGN: Participants selected the picture card that best represented their decision-making preference. MAIN VARIABLES: Demographic factors, prior knowledge, nature of surgery and preference for participation in decision making. RESULTS: Significant correlations were made between the questionnaire and the picture card tool. Using the tool, a significant difference was found between males' and females' decision-making preference, yet, no significant difference was found with respect to type or previous surgical operation.     

Educational inequalities in patient-centred care: patients¿ preferences and experiences

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Educational attainment is strongly related to specific health outcomes. The pathway in which individual patient-provider interactions contribute to (re)producing these inequalities has yet to be studied. In this article, the focus is on differences between less and more highly educated patients in their preferences for and experiences with patient-centred care., e.g. shared decision making, receiving understandable explanations and being able to ask questions. METHODS: Data are derived from several Consumer Quality-index (CQ-index) studies. The CQ-index is a family of standardized instruments which are used in the Netherlands to measure quality of care from the patient's perspective. RESULTS: The educational level of patients is directly related to the degree of importance patients attribute to specific aspects of patient-centred care. It has a minor influence on the experienced level of shared decision making, but not on experiences regarding other aspects of patient-centred care. CONCLUSIONS: All patients regard patient-centred care as important and report positive experiences. However, there is a discrepancy between patient preferences for patient-centred care on one hand and the care received on the other. Less educated patients might receive 'too much', and more highly educated patients 'too little' in the domains of communication, information and shared decision making.     

The role of doctor's opinion in shared decision making: what does shared decision making really mean when considering invasive medical procedures?1

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to gain understanding about patients' perspectives on decision making in the context of invasive medical interventions and whether patients' decision-making preferences influenced the type of information they desired to be provided by physicians. DESIGN: Questionnaire study of consecutive patients in a university-based general medicine clinic. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were presented with a randomized list of three types of information that physicians could provide (risk, benefit and physician's opinion on whether they should undergo the procedure). Patients were asked whether they preferred patient-based, physician-based, or shared decision making and then were asked to select which one or combination of these three information types was most important to them in their own decision making. Patients were also asked to self-report on how many invasive procedures they had undergone in their own lives. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 202 consecutive patients (mean age = 65.1 years, SD = 12.3, range 28-88; mean education 13.3 years, SD 2.9, range 2-23). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient reports. RESULTS: Of the 202 patients, two patients reported no decision-making preference. These two patients were excluded from the analysis. Of the 200 remaining patients, 62.5% (125/200) preferred shared, 22.5%(45/200) preferred physician-based, and 15.5% (31/200) preferred patient-based decision making. More than half of all subjects chose physician opinion as the most important type of information for decision making. Older patients (odds ratio 1.028; confidence interval 1.003-1.053) were more likely to have ranked the doctor's opinion as the most important in their decision making for invasive medical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Although most patients want to share decision making with their physicians regarding invasive procedures, the majority of these patients report relying on the doctor's opinion on whether to undergo the procedure as the most important information in their own decision making.     

基于医患偏好差异的治疗方案决策模型

文章针对医生、患者等对治疗方案的疗效和风险等存在不同的偏好,难以达成一致的治疗决策,提出了一种基于离散选择实验（DCE）和逼近理想解法（TOPSIS）的治疗方案选择方法。在应用离散选择实验调查患者及医生的偏好基础上,引入逼近理想解法对各种治疗方案进行定量评价。最后,以转移性肾细胞癌的靶向治疗为例说明该方法的具体应用,并比较了医生决策、患者决策、医患共同参与决策等不同决策方式下各治疗方案的评价排序,为临床决策制定提供参考意见。