The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Patients' preferences for involvement in treatment decision making in Japan
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A number of previous studies have suggested that the Japanese have few opportunities to participate in medical decision-making, as a result both of entrenched physician paternalism and national characteristics of dependency and passivity. The hypothesis that Japanese patients would wish to participate in treatment decision-making if adequate information were provided, and the decision to be made was clearly identified, was tested by interview survey. METHODS: The subjects were diabetic patients at a single outpatient clinic in Kyoto. One of three case study vignettes (pneumonia, gangrene or cancer) was randomly assigned to each subject and, employing face-to-face interviews, the subjects were asked what their wishes would be as patients, for treatment information, participation in decision-making and family involvement. RESULTS: 134 patients participated in the study, representing a response rate of 90%. The overall proportions of respondents who preferred active, collaborative, and passive roles were 12%, 71%, and 17%, respectively. Respondents to the cancer vignette were less likely to prefer an active role and were more likely to prefer family involvement in decision-making compared to non-cancer vignette respondents. If a physician's recommendation conflicted with their own wishes, 60% of the respondents for each vignette answered that they would choose to respect the physician's opinion, while few respondents would give the family's preference primary importance. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested that a majority of Japanese patients have positive attitudes towards participation in medical decision making if they are fully informed. Physicians will give greater patient satisfaction if they respond to the desire of patients for participation in decision-making.
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
Cited by
Kripalani, S., LeFevre, F., Phillips, C. O., Williams, M. V., Basaviah, P., & Baker, D. W. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.297.8.831 · Cited by 2,103
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
Ishikawa, H., & Yamazaki, Y. (2005) · International Journal of Japanese Sociology · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6781.2005.00070.x · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Sekimoto, M., Asai, A., Ohnishi, M., Nishigaki, E., Fukui, T., Shimbo, T., & Imanaka, Y.
- Venue
- BMC Family Practice
- Published
- 2004-03-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-1
- ISSN
- 1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1583633459
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Patients' preferences for involvement in treatment decision making in Japan. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2296-5-1
- The paper
- Sekimoto, M., Asai, A., Ohnishi, M., Nishigaki, E., Fukui, T., Shimbo, T., & Imanaka, Y. (2004). Patients' preferences for involvement in treatment decision making in Japan. BMC Family Practice. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-5-1
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.