Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making

Arwen H. Pieterse, Kim Brandes, Jessica de Graaf, Joyce E. de Boer, Nanon H. M. Labrie, Anouk Knops, Cornelia F. Allaart, Johanna E. A. Portielje, Willem Jan W. Bos and Anne M. Stiggelbout
Additional contact information
Arwen H. Pieterse: Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
Kim Brandes: Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, NSW, The Netherlands
Jessica de Graaf: Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, NSW, The Netherlands
Joyce E. de Boer: Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, NSW, The Netherlands
Nanon H. M. Labrie: Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Anouk Knops: Dutch Federation of Patients’ Organizations, Quality of Care Department, BM, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Cornelia F. Allaart: Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Johanna E. A. Portielje: Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Willem Jan W. Bos: Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Anne M. Stiggelbout: Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, NSW, The Netherlands

Medical Decision Making, 2022, vol. 42, issue 3, 375-386

Abstract: Purpose Shared decision making calls for clinician communication strategies that aim to foster choice awareness and to present treatment options neutrally, such as by not showing a preference. Evidence for the effectiveness of these communication strategies to enhance patient involvement in treatment decision making is lacking. We tested the effects of 2 strategies in an online randomized video-vignettes experiment. Methods We developed disease-specific video vignettes for rheumatic disease, cancer, and kidney disease showcasing a physician presenting 2 treatment options. We tested the strategies in a 2 (choice awareness communication present/absent) by 2 (physician preference communication present/absent) randomized between-subjects design. We asked patients and disease-naïve participants to view 1 video vignette while imagining being the patient and to report perceived room for involvement (primary outcome), understanding of treatment information, treatment preference, satisfaction with the consultation, and trust in the physician (secondary outcomes). Differences across experimental conditions were assessed using 2-way analyses of variance. Results A total of 324 patients and 360 disease-naïve respondents participated (mean age, 52 ± 14.7 y, 54% female, 56% lower educated, mean health literacy, 12 ± 2.1 on a 3–15 scale). The results showed that choice awareness communication had a positive (M present = 5.2 v. M absent = 5.0, P = 0.042, η 2 partial = 0.006) and physician preference communication had no (M present = 5.0 v. M absent = 5.1, P = 0.144, η 2 partial = 0.003) significant effect on perceived room for involvement in decision making. Physician preference communication steered patients toward preferring that treatment option (M present = 4.7 v. M absent = 5.3, P = 0.006, η 2 partial = 0.011). The strategies had no significant effect on understanding, satisfaction, or trust. Conclusions This is the first experimental evidence for a small effect of fostering choice awareness and no effect of physician preference on perceived room to participate in decision making. Physician preference steered patients toward preferring that option.

Keywords: communication; experiment; implicit persuasion; options; patient involvement; shared decision making (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211056334 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:375-386

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211056334

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().