ArticleAtencion primaria2012
[Patient opinion and perception of their participation in family medicine consultation decision making].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2012. 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.
- [Setting priorities for patient safety in Primary Care].Atencion primaria · 2016Article
- Patients' opinions about knowing their risk for depression and what to do about it. The predictD-qualitative study.PloS one · 2014Article
- [Opinions of family doctors on the involvement of patients in the taking of decisions: a study with focus groups].Atencion primaria · 2012Article
- [Doctor, with your knowledge of medicine and health care and me, tell me, what would you do in my place?].Atencion primaria · 2012Article
- Multidisciplinary approach to psoriasis in the Spanish National Health System: A social return on investment study.Global & regional health technology assessmentArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo find out the views of the patient on their participation in decision making (DM) when visiting their family physician.
designA cross-sectional, qualitative and quantitative study. SETTING AND
participantsPatients attending their family doctors in diverse geographical Health Centres. MEASUREMENTS: Personal interviewing using different kinds of questions (close-ended, close-ended with options and open-ended questions).
resultsPatients participation: 658 (52 ± 17.4 years, 62% females, consulting with 97 doctors (from urban centres: 36 (458); rural centres: 22 (200). Most patients (94%; 620) declared to be satisfied with DM and up to 41% (266) thought that DM should be taken only by the doctor. Nevertheless, after the consultation 60% of patients (360) confirmed that they would have liked the physician to have asked them for their opinion, but the doctor did not encourage them to do this. Furthermore, patients considered information, discussion about options, ways to make decisions, medical advice, active listening and empathy as key aspects to encourage them to participate.
conclusionsAfter a medical consultation, most patients wanted to give their opinion about the proposals of treatment. Nevertheless, they felt that their doctors offered them these opportunities on very few occasions. Some types of questions are better than others in detecting of these kinds of needs, and are more useful to design strategies for involving patients in the DM process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.