TY - JOUR
T1 - Three questions that patients can ask to improve the quality of information physicians give about treatment options
T2 - a cross-over trial
AU - Shepherd, H. L.
AU - Barratt, A.
AU - Trevena, L. J.
AU - McGeechan, K.
AU - Carey, K.
AU - Epstein, R. M.
AU - Butow, P. N.
AU - Del Mar, C. B.
AU - Entwistle, V.
AU - Tattersall, M. H. N.
PY - 2011/9
Y1 - 2011/9
N2 - Objective: To test the effect of three questions (what are my options? what are the benefits and harms? and how likely are these?), on information provided by physicians about treatment options. Methods: We used a cross-over trial using two unannounced standardized patients (SPs) simulating a presentation of mild-moderate depression. One SP was assigned the intervention role (asking the questions), the other the control role. An intervention and control SP visited each physician, order allocated randomly. The study was conducted in family practices in Sydney, Australia, during 2008-09. Data were obtained from consultation audio-recordings. Information about treatment options and patient involvement were analyzed using the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool and the OPTION tool. Results: Thirty-six SP visits were completed (18 intervention, 18 control). Scores were higher in intervention consultations than controls: ACEPP scores 21.4 vs. 16.6, p<0.001, difference 4.7 (95% CI 2.3-7.0) and OPTION scores 36 vs. 25, p= 0.001, difference 11.5 (95% CI 5.1-17.8), indicating greater information provision and behavior supporting patient involvement. Conclusion: Asking these three questions improved information given by family physicians and increased physician facilitation of patient involvement. Practice implications. These questions can drive evidence-based practice, strengthen patient-physician communication, and improve safety and quality.
AB - Objective: To test the effect of three questions (what are my options? what are the benefits and harms? and how likely are these?), on information provided by physicians about treatment options. Methods: We used a cross-over trial using two unannounced standardized patients (SPs) simulating a presentation of mild-moderate depression. One SP was assigned the intervention role (asking the questions), the other the control role. An intervention and control SP visited each physician, order allocated randomly. The study was conducted in family practices in Sydney, Australia, during 2008-09. Data were obtained from consultation audio-recordings. Information about treatment options and patient involvement were analyzed using the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool and the OPTION tool. Results: Thirty-six SP visits were completed (18 intervention, 18 control). Scores were higher in intervention consultations than controls: ACEPP scores 21.4 vs. 16.6, p<0.001, difference 4.7 (95% CI 2.3-7.0) and OPTION scores 36 vs. 25, p= 0.001, difference 11.5 (95% CI 5.1-17.8), indicating greater information provision and behavior supporting patient involvement. Conclusion: Asking these three questions improved information given by family physicians and increased physician facilitation of patient involvement. Practice implications. These questions can drive evidence-based practice, strengthen patient-physician communication, and improve safety and quality.
KW - doctor-patient communication
KW - standardized patients
KW - patient involvement
KW - treatment decision-making
KW - evidence-based medicine
KW - primary-care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051774072&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.pec.2011.07.022
DO - 10.1016/j.pec.2011.07.022
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:80051774072
VL - 84
SP - 379
EP - 385
JO - Patient Education and Counseling
JF - Patient Education and Counseling
SN - 0738-3991
IS - 3
ER -