ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2007
The lure of 'patient choice'.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Democratising and vitalising family practice by patient-centred medicine.Mental health in family medicine · 2010Article
- Choosing, deciding, or participating: what do patients want in primary care?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
- The value of choice: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
- Patient choice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007Article
- When should you involve patients in treatment decisions?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byPatient choice.2007
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As primary care practitioners are the health professionals closest to patients' everyday lives, they are most likely to experience the impact of policies that support the patient choice agenda. The government's approach to increasing patient choice has been subject to criticism by those sceptical of its politics and by those concerned with its influence on health providers and some patient groups. A perspective missing from the debate is one informed by research on the psychology of choice. Some psychologists have argued that a seemingly inbuilt preference for choice can adversely affect the decision-making process and that presenting healthcare decisions as choices may result in less reasoned decision making. It is important that GPs encourage patients to make reasoned healthcare decisions that are informed by an evaluation of the options rather than by a simple preference for choice. Patients are likely to be less satisfied with, and experience more regret about, choices made without reasoning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17925141PMC2151816What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.