ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2014
Patient participation in the discussions of options in Spanish primary care consultations.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Communication with patients and the duration of family medicine consultations.Atencion primaria · 2018Article
- Communication skills of tutors and family medicine physician residents in Primary Care clinics.Atencion primaria · 2016Article
- [Theory of action on patient relationships. A different way of representing and understanding the behaviour of the family doctor in the clinic].Atencion primaria · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine patients' participation in the discussion of options in primary care consultations. Identify the patients' wish to participate and their perceptions of their participation and explore the potential factors that may influence these.
designCross-sectional study. Setting. Ninety-seven general practices. Participants. six hundred and fifty-eight patients who went to their doctors for unselected reasons. Measurements. All the encounters were videoed, patient participation in decision making (DM) was assessed with two tools. After the consultation, GPs completed a questionnaire about biomedical and relational information. Patients' preferences and perception of participation was explored with different type of questions.
resultsEncounters successfully videoed: 638. Of these, only 90 interviews clearly showed patient participation. In 161 other interviews, patient participation was considered possible. Questionnaires collected: 645. In 60% of the situations (390 encounters), patients wished they could have stated their views about the proposed option(s), but they perceived this did not happen. The degree of participation at the consultation did not relate significantly with the physician's ideas about the type of problem, evolution and treatment. Neither did any of the considered variables influence either the patients' wish to participate in the discussion of the suggested option or their perception of this.
conclusionsGPs ask patients for their opinion and promote discussion about the suggested plan in few encounters. Patients perceive this, including many patients that previously had declared not to be interested in being involved in decisions. These results revealed an important mismatch between what patients wish and what they perceive.
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.