Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 49, Issue 5, September 1999, Pages 651-661
Social Science & Medicine

Decision-making in the physician–patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00145-8Get rights and content

Abstract

In this paper we revisit and add elements to our earlier conceptual framework on shared treatment decision-making within the context of different decision-making approaches in the medical encounter (Charles, C., Gafni, A., Whelan, T., 1997. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or, it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine 44, 681–692.). This revised framework (1) explicitly identifies different analytic steps in the treatment decision-making process; (2) provides a dynamic view of treatment decision-making by recognizing that the approach adopted at the outset of a medical encounter may change as the interaction evolves; (3) identifies decision-making approaches which lie between the three predominant models (paternalistic, shared and informed) and (4) has practical applications for clinical practice, research and medical education. Rather than advocating a particular approach, we emphasize the importance of flexibility in the way that physicians structure the decision-making process so that individual differences in patient preferences can be respected.

Introduction

Although shared treatment decision-making is a concept that has gained widespread appeal to both physicians and patients in recent years, there is still confusion about what the concept means. To help clarify this issue, we published a paper which tried to define shared treatment decision-making and its key characteristics and to show how this interactional model differs from other commonly cited approaches to treatment decision-making such as the paternalistic and the informed models1 (Charles et al., 1997a). The paternalistic model is by now well known and articulated (Emanuel and Emanuel, 1992, Levine et al., 1992, Beisecker and Beisecker, 1993, Deber, 1994, Coulter, 1997). Hence, we concentrated on exploring the differences between the informed and the shared models because these two labels have often been used interchangeably to describe quite different types of interaction between physician and patient in treatment decision-making.

The context for our discussion was a life threatening disease where several treatment options were available with different possible outcomes (benefits and risks or side effects), outcomes could vary in their impact on the patient's physical and psychological well-being and outcomes in the individual case were uncertain. In this context, we argued that a shared treatment decision-making model could be identified as such by reference to four necessary characteristics (Charles et al., 1997a) as follows:

  • 1.

    At a minimum, both the physician and patient are involved in the treatment decision-making process.

  • 2.

    Both the physician and patient share information with each other.

  • 3.

    Both the physician and the patient take steps to participate in the decision-making process by expressing treatment preferences.

  • 4.

    A treatment decision is made and both the physician and patient agree on the treatment to implement.

In this paper we revisit and add elements to our conceptual framework based on further analytic thinking and our current research on the meaning of shared decision-making to women with early stage breast cancer and to physicians who specialize in this area (Charles et al., 1998). Our revised framework (1) identifies different analytic stages in the treatment decision-making process; (2) provides a dynamic view of treatment decision-making by recognizing that the approach adopted at the outset of any given physician–patient encounter may change during the course of that encounter; (3) identifies different approaches that lie in between the three predominant treatment decision-making models and (4) has practical applications for clinical practice, research and medical education. Before exploring these issues, we briefly review factors that have led to the development of new treatment decision-making models as alternatives to the traditional paternalistic approach.

Section snippets

The rise and fall of paternalism

Prior to the 1980s, the most prevalent approach to treatment decision-making in North America was paternalistic with physicians assuming the dominant role. Underlying this deference to professional authority were a number of assumptions. First, that for most illnesses, a single best treatment existed and that physicians generally would be well versed in the most current and valid clinical thinking. Second, physicians would not only know the best treatments available, they would consistently

Models of treatment decision-making

Both the informed and the shared models of treatment decision-making were developed largely in reaction to the paternalistic model and to compensate for alleged flaws in the latter approach. These three models are the most prominent and widely discussed in the treatment decision-making literature. Key characteristics of each model and how they differ from one another are summarized in Table 1. In Table 1 treatment decision-making is subdivided into three analytically distinct stages, even

Practical applications of the framework

Our revised and updated framework depicted in Table 1 is more flexible and incorporates a more dynamic perspective on treatment decision-making than our earlier model. We think it is also clearer in terms of practical applications for physicians and others. First, the framework provides a description of the various analytical stages in the decision-making process. The framework can be used to educate physicians about these stages and about the defining characteristics of each model. The

Conclusion

In this paper we have revisited and expanded our earlier conceptual framework of different treatment decision-making models. We think this framework is more flexible than its predecessor and recognizes more clearly the dynamic nature of treatment decision-making. Practical applications of the framework have also been discussed. Over the course of our research we have learned that treatment decision-making is a complex process that takes place over time and can involve many individuals rather

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of Canada, Canadian Breast Cancer Research Initiative. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We are grateful to Reviewer I, in particular, for pointing out that the analogy we use of ‘taking two to tango’ can be extended to incorporate the notion that the lead partner can change depending on the type of dance being undertaken.

References (60)

  • D.M. Berwick

    Health services research and quality of care: assignments for the 1990s

    Medical Care

    (1989)
  • H. Blumer

    Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method

    (1969)
  • D.W. Brock et al.

    When competent patients make irrational choices

    New England Journal of Medicine

    (1990)
  • D.S. Brody

    The patient's role in clinical decision-making

    Annals of Internal Medicine

    (1980)
  • J. Cahill

    Patient participation: a concept analysis

    Journal of Advanced Nursing

    (1996)
  • C. Charles et al.

    Lay participation in health care decision-making: a conceptual framework

    Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law

    (1993)
  • Charles, C., Whelan, T., Gafni, A., Lindsay, E., 1999. Shared treatment decision-making among physicians and women with...
  • C. Charles et al.

    The role of medical necessity in Canadian health policy. Four meanings… and a funeral?

    The Milbank Quarterly

    (1997)
  • C. Charles et al.

    Doing nothing is no choice: lay constructions of treatment decision-making among women with early-stage breast cancer

    Sociology of Health and Illness

    (1998)
  • M.R. Chassin et al.

    Variation in the use of medical and surgical services by the medicare population

    New England Journal of Medicine

    (1986)
  • M.R. Chassin et al.

    Does inappropriate use explain geographic variations in the use of health care services?

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1987)
  • M.R. Chassin et al.

    How coronary angiography is used. Clinical determinants of appropriateness

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1987)
  • A. Coulter

    Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making

    Journal of Health Services Research and Policy

    (1997)
  • R. Deber

    Physicians in health care management. 7. The patient–physician partnership: changing roles and the desire for information

    Canadian Medical Association Journal

    (1994)
  • R. Deber

    Shared decision-making in the real world

    Journal of General Internal Medicine

    (1996)
  • D.M. Eddy

    Anatomy of a decision

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1990)
  • E.J. Emanuel et al.

    Four models of the physician–patient relationship

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1992)
  • V.A. Entwistle et al.

    Evaluating interventions to promote patient involvement in decision-making by what criteria should effectiveness be judged?

    Journal of Health Services Research Policy

    (1998)
  • R.G. Evans

    Strained Mercy: the Economics of Canadian Health Care

    (1984)
  • A.B. Flood et al.

    The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer

    The Journal of General Internal Medicine

    (1996)
  • Cited by (1753)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text