The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Role Do Patients Wish to Play in Treatment Decision Making?
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although current ideology suggests patients should be active participants in decision making about their care, the literature suggests that patients wish to be informed but not involved. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that most patients want their physicians to take the responsibility for problem solving (PS, identifying the one right answer), but that many want to be involved in decision-making (DM, selecting the most desired bundle of outcomes) tasks. METHODS: Survey responses from 300 patients undergoing angiogram at a Toronto, Ontario, hospital were analyzed (response rate, 72%). Survey items included scales to measure desire for information and participation, including Autonomy Preference Index, the Krantz Health Opinion Survey, and the Deber-Kraetschmer Problem-Solving Decision-Making Scale measured on a scale from, 1 (doctor only) to 5 (patient only). RESULTS: Patients had a relatively high desire for information. On the Problem-Solving Decision-Making Scale, they overwhelmingly wished the PS tasks to be performed by or shared with the physician (98.4% of the 12 PS scores are between 1 and 3), but wanted to be involved in DM (78% of the 6 DM scores are between 3 and 5). Preference for handing over control to the physician was significantly greater for the vignette involving potential mortality (chest pain) than for the vignettes involving mainly morbidity (urinary problems) or quality of life (fertility). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients do not wish to be involved in PS tasks, few wish to hand over DM control to their physician. These findings suggest 2 major roles for clinicians--assisting patients in PS to structure choices and supporting them in making often difficult decisions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Weinberger, D. A., Schwartz, G. E., & Davidson, R. J. (1979) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.88.4.369 · Cited by 1,083
Cited by
Virani, S. S., Newby, L. K., Arnold, S. V., Bittner, V., Brewer, L. C., Demeter, S. H., Dixon, D. L., Fearon, W. F., Hess, B., Johnson, H. M., et al. (2023) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001168 · Cited by 1,598
Patient preferences for shared decisions: A systematic review
Chewning, B., Bylund, C. L., Shah, B., Arora, N. K., Gueguen, J. A., & Makoul, G. (2012) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004 · Cited by 849
Gravel, K., Légaré, F., & Graham, I. D. (2006) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-1-16 · Cited by 755
(2000) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 737
Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions
Frosch, D. L., & Kaplan, R. M. (1999) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(99)00097-5 · Cited by 721
Metadata
- Authors
- Deber, R. B.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1996-07-08
- Volume
- 156
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1414-1414
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2009353549
- Cited by
- 627
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 37.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Role Do Patients Wish to Play in Treatment Decision Making? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.156.13.1414
- The paper
- Deber, R. B. (1996). What Role Do Patients Wish to Play in Treatment Decision Making? Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.156.13.1414
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.