You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Patient-centred medicine
Original research
Integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative evidence
  1. Michael Tringale1,
  2. Genia Stephen1,
  3. Anne-Marie Boylan2,
  4. Carl Heneghan3
  1. 1Kellogg College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  2. 2Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  3. 3Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Michael Tringale; miketringale{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objectives To identify and thematically analyse how healthcare professionals (HCPs) integrate patient values and preferences (‘values integration’) in primary care for adults with non-communicable diseases (NCDs).

Design Systematic review and meta-aggregation methods were used for extraction, synthesis and analysis of qualitative evidence.

Data sources Relevant records were sourced using keywords to search 12 databases (ASSIA, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, ERIC, Google Scholar, GreyLit, Ovid-MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science).

Eligibility criteria Records needed to be published between 2000 and 2020 and report qualitative methods and findings in English involving HCP participants regarding primary care for adult patients.

Data extraction and synthesis Relevant data including participant quotations, authors’ observations, interpretations and conclusions were extracted, synthesised and analysed in a phased approach using a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Data Extraction Tool, as well as EPPI Reviewer and NVivo software. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research was used to assess methodological quality of included records.

Results Thirty-one records involving >1032 HCP participants and 1823 HCP-patient encounters were reviewed. Findings included 143 approaches to values integration in clinical care, thematically analysed and synthesised into four themes: (1) approaches of concern; (2) approaches of competence; (3) approaches of communication and (4) approaches of congruence. Confidence in the quality of included records was deemed high.

Conclusions HCPs incorporate patient values and preferences in healthcare through a variety of approaches including showing concern for the patient as a person, demonstrating competence at managing diseases, communicating with patients as partners and tailoring, adjusting and balancing overall care. Themes in this review provide a novel framework for understanding and addressing values integration in clinical care and provide useful insights for policymakers, educators and practitioners.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020166002.

  • general medicine (see internal medicine)
  • primary care
  • asthma
  • general diabetes
  • adult oncology
  • adult cardiology

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067268

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

    • This is the first systematic review to identify and thematically analyse approaches to values integration in clinical care.

    • An extensive search strategy and well-defined study selection criteria were employed to find qualitative evidence related to this topic.

    • Systematic, transparent methods were used to appraise the quality of included records, extract and analyse data.

    • Thematic analysis can present limitations as it involves subjective interpretation of previously reported evidence.

    Introduction

    The practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) calls for patient values and preferences to be considered and integrated by clinicians alongside the best available research and clinical expertise.1 These three forces comprise the EBM ‘triad’ (figure 1) and, when conscientiously and judiciously applied2 by healthcare professionals (HCPs), it is believed that optimal patient-centred care can be achieved.3

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    The evidence-based medicine (EBM) triad.

    Delivering patient-centred care relies on understanding the patient’s values and preferences at every stage,4 but acquiring this knowledge is challenging. Patients and their needs are heterogenous, difficult to predict, subject to change and dependent on many factors.5

    Patient values and preferences are the unique understandings, preferences, concerns, expectations and life circumstances of each patient.6 Values are defined as a patient’s attitudes and perceptions about certain healthcare options, and preferences are their preferred choices after accounting for their values.7

    A recent systematic review of qualitative studies identified a taxonomy of what patients say they value in healthcare including uniqueness, autonomy, compassion, professionalism, responsiveness, partnership and empowerment.8 While this is useful for understanding what patients value and prefer, the question remains: How do HCPs integrate values and preferences into clinical care for individual patients? Very little research has been done on this critical component of EBM.

    Research evidence (especially quantitative research, randomised controlled trials in particular)9 has received most of the attention in EBM, with less systematic consideration given to values integration which has been ‘almost completely ignored’,10 resulting in a paucity of data on values integration in clinical decision-making.11

    Research on patient values and preferences—and how HCPs approach values integration—tends to be reliant on qualitative evidence,8 a level of evidence that does not appear in the standard EBM hierarchy of evidence.12–14 Considerations for patient values and preferences are seldom encoded into clinical practice guidelines15 and there are no established methods for addressing values integration when developing guidelines.16

    Non-communicable diseases (NCDs), also known as chronic diseases, are defined by WHO as conditions of long duration resulting from a number of physical, behavioural or environmental factors and account for 7-out-of-10 deaths worldwide.17 The four most common categories of NCDs include cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular (CV) diseases and chronic respiratory diseases. These are often managed in primary and secondary care settings18 and require ongoing therapeutic relationships involving more frequent HCP-patient interaction which makes values integration even more important.

    Improvements in patient-centred care can lead to improved outcomes including lowering readmission rates, decreasing hospital length of stay, reducing mortality and better management of chronic diseases overall.17 Therefore, understanding how to better incorporate patient values and preferences in healthcare is an essential skill that can improve clinical outcomes19 and patient satisfaction20 to help reduce the burden of NCDs.

    The primary objective of this review is to identify and thematically analyse how HCPs integrate patient values and preferences in primary care for adults with NCDs.

    Methods

    Methodology

    This review used a meta-aggregation methodology.21 A protocol was prospectively published on the PROSPERO international register of systematic reviews, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ registration no. CRD42020166002 (online supplemental appendix A).

    Participants and phenomena of interest

    Participants included practising HCPs in primary and secondary care: professionals with experience in direct patient care in non-inpatient and non-emergency settings, including doctors, nurses and other clinicians.22 Phenomena of interest included HCP approaches, behaviours, attitudes, perceptions, experiences, perspectives, opinions and observations regarding values integration in clinical care.

    Information sources and search strategy

    Authors were interested in current relevant practice so this review’s preplanned search considered studies and other evidence published between January 2000 and August 2020 with full text available in English reporting data derived from HCP participants. Only studies using qualitative methods including, but not limited to, interviews, focus groups, direct observations, surveys, narrative reviews or content analysis were included.

    Search terms were identified and adapted from an initial scoping of databases and an analysis of text from titles, abstracts and index terms, followed by a systematic literature search of 12 databases (ASSIA, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, ERIC, Google Scholar, GreyLit, Ovid-MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science). The search was tailored to the unique formats, operators and conventions of each database using a variety of search terms related to participants, phenomena of interest, context, setting and qualitative methodologies and methods (online supplemental appendix B).

    Study eligibility and selection

    Two reviewers (MT and GS) participated in a four-stage screening and selection process using the EPPI Reviewer software23 including independent double-screening24 of 10% of initial abstracts and titles, single screening of remaining titles and abstracts, full-text screening of all records not yet excluded and forward-backward search and screening of additional citations. Conflicts among screeners were resolved by conference and mutual agreement or by a third reviewer. Inclusion/Exclusion criteria were predetermined by reviewers including:

    • Evidence type (excluded records that did not use any qualitative methods and did not report qualitative findings).

    • Date (excluded records published before the year 2000).

    • Language (excluded records for which full text was not available in the English language).

    • Phenomena of interest (excluded records that did not report findings related to incorporating patient values and preferences).

    • Target group (excluded records that did not involve HCP participants, or were not concerned with HCP interactions with adult patients).

    • Disease/Condition type (excluded records that did not refer to primary or secondary care or one of the top four most common NCD categories (oncology (cancers), CV, endocrine related (diabetes) and respiratory)).

    Appraisal of quality

    The objectivity of qualitative research can be strengthened through the use of quality methods.25 This review used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research,21 26 27 a validated tool to help determine the methodological quality of included records in systematic reviews (online supplemental appendix C).

    Extraction, synthesis and analysis

    This review employed meta-aggregative methods for extraction, synthesis and analysis.21 Data including participant quotations, authors’ observations, interpretations and conclusions were extracted in a phased approach using a modified version of the JBI Data Extraction Tool27 (online supplemental appendix D). One author (MT) with experience in qualitative methods and coding conducted line-by-line coding using NVivo28 computer software allowing for simultaneous coding and an initial synthesis of the information.29

    Using an inductive approach, extraction began with reading and re-reading records to become familiar with the content followed by hand-coding of all records. This enabled the development of a preliminary coding scheme for organising and managing data in NVivo, wherein the author continued to inductively and iteratively code the data. Codes were collated, analysed, grouped and categorised into a number of increasingly narrow sets of codes based on statements and ideas across data. Themes, developed from the codes, were further synthesised based on patterns and similarities in their meaning to arrive at a final set of primary themes that could be used as a basis for a meaningful summary and interpretation. Themes were only considered if there were two or more codes underlying the theme.

    Excluded data

    Some records reported mixed methods, but quantitative data and/or data not derived from HCP participants were excluded from this review.

    Patient and public involvement

    It was not appropriate or possible to involve patients or the public in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this systematic review. However, a minority of the included records reported patient and public involvement in their methods.

    Results

    Included records

    The initial search identified 3331 records and after full-text screening 31 records were included (figure 2).30 No systematic review regarding values integration was published between 2000 and 2020.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram.

    Characteristics of included records

    Most records were peer-reviewed published reports of original research, two are separate reports from the same study,31 32 and one was an unpublished dissertation33 (table 1). The most common methods of data collection were interviews (in-depth, semi-structured (in-person and telephone)) in 17 studies,31 32 34–48 observations (real-time, in-person or audio/video recordings) in 9 studies33 34 39 48–53 and focus groups in 6 studies.40 41 54–57 Other methods included surveys,45 55 58 Delphi technique,45 48 narrative description,34 narrative review,59 document analysis,36 evidence review,60 research work groups,11 chart audits,34 note taking34 and video reflexive ethnography (VRE).61 Nine studies employed more than one method.33 34 36 39–41 45 48 55

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Characteristics of included records

    At least 1032 HCP participants are represented in the included records, including 477 nurses/nurse practitioners, 417 physicians and 138 other HCP types including allied health professionals, pharmacists, clinical administrators, nutritionists, social workers and patient decision coaches. At least 1823 HCP-patient consultations, encounters or interactions (either observed or described) in various clinical settings are represented in the records.

    Nearly half of the studies included were conducted in North America with 15 in the USA and 2 in Canada, followed by 5 in the UK, 3 in Australia, 3 in the Netherlands, 2 in Norway and 1 each in Belgium, Italy, Malaysia and Portugal.

    Methodological quality of included records

    Confidence in the quality of included records was deemed high. Most used appropriate qualitative methodologies, methods and analytical approaches, resulting in meaningful findings and conclusions. However, most records failed to provide adequate reflexive statements locating researchers theoretically or culturally, and also failed to address the researchers’ influence on the research and vice versa (online supplemental appendix C).

    Findings

    This review identified 143 approaches—specific behaviours, actions, practices or experiences of HCPs—to integrating patient values and preferences in clinical care. These were thematically analysed and synthesised into four primary themes—approaches of concern, competence, communication and congruence—and several subthemes (table 2). See online supplemental appendix E for a complete list of approaches.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Taxonomy of themes: approaches to values integration

    Approaches of concern

    HCPs incorporate patient values and preferences when they demonstrate concern for the patient as a unique individual and as a partner in their own care, and show concern for diseases and their effects on the patient.

    This includes advocating on a patient’s behalf,11 such as talking to HCP colleagues to get additional insights, making referrals to other specialist or advocating for second opinions on conditions and treatments.44

    ‘Advocates for the patient (includes willingness to circumvent or adapt the system) and Physicians’ advocacy within (or around) the health-care system helps patients implement jointly negotiated decisions.’11

    HCPs use caring and connecting behaviours like acting in a sincere,45 relational11 and empathetic manner, making the patient feel comfortable and creating a safe space to talk, question and/or disagree,33 and using expressive touch.48 Treating the patient as unique45 and seeing the patient’s perspective48 are also approaches that demonstrate concern which can include HCPs sharing their own personal experiences, interests or feelings.11 HCPs also show compassion, empathy and basic human concern47 without being judgmental.45 Other such approaches include remaining present, mindful and ‘in the moment’48 while providing care for immediate concerns, and incorporating preventative care to demonstrate concern for the patient’s overall well-being.34

    ‘A physician participant highlighted the importance of the physician’s effort to act in a relational way by saying, ‘‘…Express caring in that interaction—this is what the physician can do. And the quality of that caring is what enhances the intrinsic motivation of the patient to take the responsibility’’.’11

    HCPs also show concern by empowering the patient through approaches that value the individual, enable self-management and promote patient agency by recognising, confirming and validating patient autonomy11 and respecting privacy.45 Empowering also includes creating an environment of equality,54 establishing trust by sharing control,11 inviting the patient to lead41 or to set the pace31 in clinical encounters, letting the patient have the final say in decisions45 or providing opportunities to reconsider previous decisions.54

    ‘The patient is enabled to keep control of his or her own situation. The patient has authority in the decision-making process.’45

    HCPs also show concern by inviting the involvement of others38 in clinical decision-making, such as asking loved ones, family or caregivers45 to help the patient make choices, or seeking input from colleagues, specialists and other HCPs for advice or second opinions.11

    ‘You have to have the team. You have to have the physician buy-in. And often I ask them to bring somebody with them so that there’s somebody else there who can hear the conversation….’38

    HCPs show concern by partnering with the patient48 by investing time with them,41 cultivating mutual respect to form a ‘therapeutic alliance’33 and treating the patient as an equal partner.31 Understanding the patient is a key element of partnering52 as well as taking a long-term view of the patient’s care.

    ‘Partnership process—strategies to establish and maintain a partnership with the patient.’48

    HCPs also show concern by sensing, that is, perceiving and acting in a sensitive manner, including interpersonal sensitivity,59 cultural sensitivity58 or showing respect and deference for religious beliefs.33 HCPs also may use intuition in the clinical encounter59 to sense patient moods and feelings.

    ‘There are two basic types of interpersonal sensitivity. The first type is simply to notice (and, relatedly, remember) the other person’s appearance, words, or nonverbal behavior. And The second, and most commonly investigated, kind of interpersonal sensitivity involves accuracy in interpreting cues.’59

    Approaches of competence

    HCPs incorporate patient values and preferences when they competently address diseases, share decision-making, understand and use research evidence and professionally manage patient care.

    Competence includes many behaviours including decision making, when HCPs competently engage with the patient to support, direct and share decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM) was one of the most frequently mentioned approaches to incorporating patient values and preferences in the records. It is its own discipline in the patient-centred care paradigm with many adherents and a large body of evidence regarding its use and effectiveness with several SDM methods and techniques. However, as its name implies, SDM addresses values integration when making treatment decisions and does not account for the predecision-making and postdecision-making values and preferences that are important to patients and HCPs in their overall long-term relationships.

    ‘The physician sharing decision making acknowledges that power is shared and integrates the patient’s preferences into a mutual decision.’11

    SDM also involves HCP competence with research evidence54 as well as skills to help formulate the patient’s stance on issues and options,51 or to negotiate decisions.11 HCPs may also use decision aids or tools to assist the patient in making treatment decisions39 or use vivid descriptions,51 a technique to aid the patient in arriving at their own conclusions. SDM also includes directing behaviours that involve the HCP giving their own opinion or recommendation to the patient46 when asked or when the patient is unable to make a decision.33 It also involves listing, an action by HCPs to suggest or ‘draw out patients’ views about possible choices’.54

    ‘[If] you ask [patients] what they think is wrong with them, then they won’t tell you. But if you give them a list of things that are in your mind, then they will usually identify some of their concerns.’54

    HCP competence also includes managing the patient care process to help achieve mutual goals without controlling the patient, including working on mutually setting an agenda41 and priorities.48 This also includes negotiating with patients to help them understand, assess, weigh and prioritise options,52 gaining clarity on agreements and disagreements11 and openly discussing the pros and cons of options.46 All of this is with the intent of eventually gaining agreement on issues, mutual roles, possible solutions and next steps.43 Managing also refers to managing patient emotions which includes efforts to reduce patient anxiety and distress,31 exploring and responding to emotions, allowing time for patients to process emotions as well as HCPs displaying their own emotions.47 Managing also involves planning and preparing behaviours such as action plans for treatment,37 agreeing on priorities,48 arranging follow-ups46 and collaborative goal setting.52 It also includes preparing for the clinical encounter to maximise the efficiency of time with the patient and readiness to elicit and incorporate values and preferences.52

    Another competency is to manage the administrative processes that are needed to support values integration, such as having clear systematic processes for patient encounters and consultations,46 using electronic health records and other methods of record keeping to capture and encode patient values and preferences for future access,48 leaving time for questions in the encounter,38 having smooth continuity of care including a system for follow-up56 and collaborative action planning.41

    ‘This process involved a significant investment of time, negotiation, deliberation, and shared decision making about the steps towards goal attainment, as well as setting a nominal target.’41

    Competent management also includes professionalism, that is, approaching the patient in a professional and honest manner. Honesty, transparency,38 responsiveness45 and a reality-based approach43 to the patient play an important role in patient-centred care and values integration, as well as being consistent with information, care and decisions.56

    ‘Professional responsiveness, Professionalism—Healthcare providers explain what is possible and what is not…Healthcare providers are honest with patients…Healthcare providers do not judge the patient’s situation…Healthcare providers respect the patient’s privacy.’45

    Approaches of communication

    HCPs incorporate patient values and preferences when they successfully communicate with the patient as a partner, share information and evidence and manage patient engagement.

    This includes approaches like acknowledging the patient’s efforts to get and stay healthy or to adhere to treatment plans,48 as well as expressing support or reassurance for the patient’s preferences and validating their choices.53

    ‘The second component of the practice involves acknowledging specific patient efforts in a genuine and positive manner.’48

    Values integration through communication also includes clarifying the patient’s stances by checking on the status of their choices, feelings, values and preferences,41 framing and reframing52 to help clarify their positions and repeating to reinforce patient preferences.56 It also includes revisiting patient decisions over time43 as patients may change their minds. Values clarification methods45 are also described in which HCPs actively engage with the patient to discuss positive and negative characteristics of options to clarify which are most important to the patient.

    ‘The mutual clarification of values can be a rewarding exercise, as it not only ensures the best possible decision but also demonstrates to patients a genuine interest in incorporating their views.’45

    Another communication approach is encouraging the patient to be active in the process, to participate in the clinical encounter/conversation,49 encouraging patient questions31 and patient storytelling.33 One technique, motivational interviewing, ‘uses an empathic non-confrontational style to increase the motivation for behaviour change, engage patients with treatment and build therapeutic relationships’.56

    ‘By comparison, providers preferring ‘‘personalized care’’ described their approach as encouraging rather than persuasive, and they were more accepting of different priorities and preferences.’43

    Values integration via communication also includes exchanging information including explaining or defining the clinical problem46 or sharing necessary biomedical information with the patient and informing them of the facts of the condition or diagnosis.39

    ‘Clinicians emphasized sharing medical information with patients. We observed a few instances during which clinicians also prompted discussion of patients’ goals and values. Clinicians reported a clear rationale in interviews as to why sharing biomedical information was central for them.’39

    Information exchange also includes sharing and presenting research evidence,39 as well as a willingness to see more information and encouraging patients to seek more information.11

    ‘There was a general view that evidence-based information regarding diagnosis and treatment options must be shared with patients during a consultation.’31

    Information exchange also includes patient education,60 coaching,48 tailoring information for the patient as well as using teaching aids, written materials60 or other educational interventions.55 Interviewing and eliciting approaches are other forms of information exchange and they were the most frequent behaviours described in the records. HCPs use various approaches to gain information from the patient, including directly eliciting patient values,49 preferences,35 goals57 and circumstances,31 sometimes referred to as patient-centred clinical interviewing.34 It also involves getting patients to appraise various preferences openly and to identify their favoured choices.53

    ‘…this meant providing current information, risks and benefits, eliciting questions and adjusting information to patients’ needs, being honest about the limits of the physician’s and scientific knowledge, and presenting an opinion.’11

    Communication also includes exploring, asking open-ended questions to better assess patient values, preferences and expectations.34 Studies noted the importance of openly exploring alternatives with the patient and exploring the clues and cues—verbal and non-verbal—that patients often provide.31

    ‘Explore ideas, fears, and expectations of the problem and possible treatments. And, Informants stated that experienced practitioners are continually alert to signals that patients accept the level of involvement being required of them and adapt accordingly.’54

    Values integration also occurs through language when HCPs use tones and techniques such as deferential, directive or inviting language,49 emotion-oriented speech47 or common language, terms or phrases with patients,38 all of which can support the patient’s values, preferences and autonomy.

    ‘‘‘Deferential’’ language…physicians did not evaluate each treatment on behalf of the patient. Instead, they used language that minimized their role in the patient’s decision and deferred to the patient’s autonomy.’49

    HCPs also integrate values by listening, including active listening without interruption59 or simple silence as a response to certain patient emotions.47

    ‘The most frequently mentioned skill was the ability to listen. Listening to patients was seen as a basic skill to enable ‘‘assessment of the language that patients use in order to pitch information level’’ and to ‘‘encourage discussion by listening to patients’ views without interruption’’.’31

    When HCPs summarise information, choices or next steps for patients, they are also integrating values. This can be done as written or audio summaries of clinical discussions60 or summaries of the encounter31 at the end of clinical visits to ensure that the HCP and patient depart with a mutual understanding of the decisions and next steps. This also allows patients to more easily share information with caregivers or other HCPs.

    Approaches of congruence

    HCPs incorporate patient values and preferences when they customise and harmonise care for each patient and balance their overall approach to care considering the patient’s values and preferences, the best available research evidence and their own clinical expertise.

    Specifically, HCPs seek congruence by adjusting and tailoring care for each unique patient. HCPs adjust information based on a patient’s needs, values and preferences,11 as well as tailor options for the patient36 according the many factors that must be considered within the realm of the research evidence, the patient’s values and the HCP’s own expertise.

    ‘Identify preferred format and provide tailor-made information…This competence consists of making the correct range of options available and listing them in a logical sequence and in sufficient clarity so that patients perceive the opportunity to take part in the decision.’54

    HCPs also seek congruence by maintaining balance and flexibility regarding patient needs, values, information, communication style, decision-making, clinical/treatment approaches and roles.50 This also refers to HCP efforts to balance multiple factors such as evidence, information, issues, mutual needs, shared power and responsibilities for and with the patient.56

    ‘The informants stressed the importance of maintaining flexibility: adherence to the ‘‘informed choice’’ approach was considered ‘‘another form of paternalism’’.’54

    Discussion

    Incorporating patient values and preferences in healthcare is critical for patient-centred care, but it is complex and requires medical knowledge as well as ‘soft skills’ such as social, psychological and communication proficiencies.62 The themes developed in this review provide a useful model for better understanding, exploring and teaching this topic. When plotted on the EBM triad (figure 3), these themes also provide a useful framework for operationalising values integration into evidence-based clinical practice.

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    The EBM triad and primary themes of approaches to values integration.

    Our findings fit well into the existing EBM discussion and contribute new evidence to this discussion by identifying and thematically analysing, for the first time, the specific behaviours and approaches that practising HCPs use to integrate patient values and preferences into everyday clinical care.

    Previous studies have described the importance of approaches that show concern for patient autonomy,32 60 taking feelings seriously,33 seeing the patient as a person and showing concern about their problems, diseases, effects, treatments and research evidence,32 63–67 as well as advising HCPs to make ‘statements of concern, empathy and reassurance’.67

    Previous studies have also described ‘the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices’.54 the competencies required for SDM,32 technical competencies for involving patients,50 ‘culturally competent care’.58 ‘competencies they (HCPs) can execute to involve patients in decision making’11 and the importance of medical competency for HCPs.8

    Previous research has also emphasised ‘provider-patient communication as key to achieving patient-centred care’.65 patient-centred54 and physician-patient communication32 and the importance of skills to ‘communicate with patients about their treatment options’.37

    Finally, other EBM literature encourages HCPs to ensure that ‘clinical goals are congruent’ with patient goals,34 to ‘achieve congruence in the consultation’.50 to strive for ‘congruency between (the patient’s) preferred and actual involvement in decision making’.64 to seek ‘congruence between (patient’s) options and their values’68 and to find ‘more balance between science, clinical expertise and patient values’.8

    Strengths and limitations

    This review used accepted, thorough and systematic methodologies and methods for qualitative synthesis, and included a wide range of databases in the search for records. Authors’ interpretations and participant quotes were included extensively throughout the review. There remains a possibility that evidence has been missed searching only records published from 2000 in English, however adherence to robust systematic review methods helped to minimise this limitation.

    Although there is a paucity of qualitative studies explicitly on the topic of ‘integrating’ or ‘incorporating’ patient values and preferences, this review identified records on related topics such as ‘patient-centred care’, ‘implementing SDM’, ‘HCP-patient communications’, ‘eliciting goals’ or ‘managing patient involvement’ and similar. There were 17 previous reviews on related topics,8 63–78 which did not qualify for inclusion in this review. However, a forward-backward search of references in those reviews identified four records already selected for inclusion in this review44 49 54 57 strengthening confidence in the robustness of this review and saturation of the topic. The original record search period between January 2000 and August 2020 is now 2 years old and, while no other qualitative systematic review has been published on this topic between August 2020 and October 2022, it is possible that additional qualitative evidence has been published which is not included in this review.

    Double screening is considered best practice for systematic reviews, with single screening recommended primarily as an ‘appropriate methodological short cut’79 for experienced researchers.24 We double-screened 10% of titles/abstracts and included reviewer discussions and debates to arrive at mutually agreed screening criteria, before single screening was conducted for the remaining records. One author conducted the initial coding and further developed themes in discussion with other authors. All authors contributed to the review, analysis and interpretation of findings.

    Rigorous thematic analysis methods were used to synthesise the findings and identify key themes and ideas across all records. Thematic analysis involves interpretation of other researchers’ previous interpretations which can present limitations. To minimise this limitation, we extensively reported direct verbatims and transcripts from HCP participants and authors when describing concepts, themes and subthemes to prevent misinterpretation of the original evidence.

    Implications for policy and practice

    Integrating patient values and preferences in modern clinical practice is important and impacts health outcomes.80 Findings from this review could help improve health policy, HCP clinical performance or patient satisfaction and outcomes by describing specific and practical patient-centred approaches to values integration.

    These findings can aid the inclusion of values integration in clinical guidelines which so far has been limited15 and for which there are few systematic standards.16 However, encoding values and preferences into a single guideline has challenges, so individual HCP skills to elicit and incorporate patient values and preferences will always be necessary.81

    Medical education and training emphasises patient-centred care and values integration in theory, but HCPs receive inadequate instruction on the skills needed to deliver it.82 This review’s primary themes and descriptions of specific approaches provide a theoretical and practical framework for education and training on this topic.

    Scope of practice varies for physicians, nurses, allied health professionals and others, but this review shows they each have a role in—and something important to contribute to—values integration. These findings can influence policymakers who should consider the entire continuum of care and provide training, tools, funding and support and encourage values integration at every level of care delivery. These findings also offer a structure to educate and assess HCPs and organisations as a whole on values integration beyond the consultation and ‘throughout the care delivery at every point’.83 HCPs and health systems need to consider patient values and preferences beyond just treatment decisions5 and this study underscores the need to be aware of, and skilled at, a number of approaches.

    This review can inform clinical practice to improve HCP-patient encounters, develop patient-centred tools and improve patient outcomes19 and satisfaction.20 Advanced practice providers could benefit from better clinical communications skills84 and the approaches described in this review could provide a guide for improvement. Despite evidence that patient decision aids improve specific outcomes,85 many HCPs do not use them86 due to lack of awareness, availability, difficulty of use or inappropriate context. Findings from this review could be useful in guiding tool developers to make and disseminate more effective decision aids.

    Future research

    The broad themes described in this review provide multiple areas for future study. The primary themes of concern, competence, communication and congruence should be explored further. While shared decision-making and HCP-patient communication are already well-represented in the literature, more study is needed on other approaches such as caring and connecting, planning and preparing or goals setting, to name a few. Future research could consider whether the themes described in this review vary, or are more common, among specific NCD groups, HCP types or care settings.

    There is significant research in the area of SDM between HCPs and patients, but very little in the area of values integration outside of the decision-making process. Future research should explore this gap. Future studies could also seek to quantify many of the qualitative findings from this review to collect evidence on what contributes to better outcomes. Many of the approaches described from the data and the resulting themes may be applicable to clinical care for other chronic diseases, but separate independent studies are encouraged.

    Finally, the theme of congruence described in this review—how HCPs tailor, adjust, balance and harmonise approaches for each patient—needs more scientific consideration. It is under-represented in the published literature, yet it represents the essence of EBM: the ‘conscientious, explicit and judicious’87 integration of patient values and preferences with the best research evidence and clinical expertise.

    Reflexivity statement

    The principal investigator for this review was a part-time graduate student (MT) at the University of Oxford while residing and working full-time in the USA in the pharmaceutical industry. MT has experience in designing, executing and analysing qualitative methods involving focus groups, interviews, Delphi methods, surveys and literature/content analysis for health-related research. MT has authored or coauthored peer-reviewed and published articles, however, had not previously conducted a systematic review. MT is not a clinician but has worked with clinicians for >25 years in hospital administration, health education and communications, research, policy and advocacy.

    Author GS, living in Canada, has a clinical background, and was also enrolled in the same Oxford graduate programme. Authors A-MB and CH live in the UK, are both faculty members from the University of Oxford’s MSc in evidence-based healthcare programme. Both have academic and/or clinical backgrounds that include researching, writing and teaching extensively on EBM and the role of patient values and preferences. They provided supervision throughout the review.

    Conclusion

    HCPs incorporate patient values and preferences in healthcare through a variety of approaches including: concern for the patient as a person as well as diseases and their effects; competence at skillfully addressing diseases, research evidence and managing patient care; communication with the patient as a partner, sharing information and evidence and productively managing patient encounters; and congruence to tailor, adjust and balance their approaches to overall care for each patient. Themes in this review provide a novel framework for understanding and addressing values integration in clinical care and provide useful insights for policymakers, educators and practitioners.

    Data availability statement

    Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    Not applicable.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Haynes RB,
      3. Jaeschke RZ, et al
      . Users' guides to the medical literature: XXV. evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the users' guides to patient care. evidence-based medicine Working group. JAMA 2000;284:1290–6.doi:10.1001/jama.284.10.1290pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10979117
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Sackett DL,
      2. Rosenberg WMC,
      3. Gray JAM, et al
      . Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996;312:71–2.doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8555924
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Mellis C
      . Evidence-Based medicine: what has happened in the past 50 years? J Paediatr Child Health 2015;51:65–8.doi:10.1111/jpc.12800pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25536873
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Gooberman-Hill R
      . Qualitative approaches to understanding patient preferences. Patient 2012;5:215–23.doi:10.1007/BF03262494pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23006055
      OpenUrlPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Lee YK,
      2. Low WY,
      3. Ng CJ
      . Exploring patient values in medical decision making: a qualitative study. PLoS One 2013;8:e80051.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080051pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24282518
      OpenUrlPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Straus SE,
      2. Pattani R,
      3. Veroniki AA
      . Evidence-based medicine : how to practice and teach EBM. Edinburgh: Elsevier, 2019.
    7. ↵
      1. Llewellyn-Thomas HA,
      2. Crump RT
      . Decision support for patients: values clarification and preference elicitation. Med Care Res Rev 2013;70:50S–79 http://ezproxy-prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk:2094/doi:10.1177/1077558712461182pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23124615
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Bastemeijer CM,
      2. Voogt L,
      3. van Ewijk JP, et al
      . What do patient values and preferences mean? A taxonomy based on a systematic review of qualitative papers. Patient Educ Couns 2017;100:871–81.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2016.12.019pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28043713
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Fernandez A,
      2. Sturmberg J,
      3. Lukersmith S, et al
      . Evidence-Based medicine: is it a bridge too far? Health Res Policy Syst 2015;13:66.doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0057-0pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26546273
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Kelly MP,
      2. Heath I,
      3. Howick J, et al
      . The importance of values in evidence-based medicine. BMC Med Ethics 2015;16:69.doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0063-3pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26459219
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Lown BA,
      2. Clark WD,
      3. Hanson JL
      . Mutual influence in shared decision making: a collaborative study of patients and physicians. Health Expect 2009;12:160–74.doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00525.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19236633
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. Petrisor B,
      2. Bhandari M
      . The hierarchy of evidence: levels and grades of recommendation. Indian J Orthop 2007;41:11–15.doi:10.4103/0019-5413.30519pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21124676
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Porta M,
      2. Greenland S,
      3. Burón A
      . A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2014.
    14. ↵
    15. ↵
      1. van der Weijden T,
      2. Pieterse AH,
      3. Koelewijn-van Loon MS, et al
      . How can clinical practice guidelines be adapted to facilitate shared decision making? A qualitative key-informant study. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:855–63.doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001502pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23748154
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      1. Zhang Y,
      2. Coello PA,
      3. Brożek J, et al
      . Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice Guideline development following the grade approach. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2017;15:52.doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0621-0pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28460638
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      Noncommunicable diseases. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases [Accessed 20 Jan 2020].
    18. ↵
      1. Finley CR,
      2. Chan DS,
      3. Garrison S, et al
      . What are the most common conditions in primary care? systematic review. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:832.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30429181
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      1. Gluyas H
      . Patient-Centred care: improving healthcare outcomes. Nurs Stand 2015;30:50–9.doi:10.7748/ns.30.4.50.e10186pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26394978
      OpenUrlPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Wolf DM,
      2. Lehman L,
      3. Quinlin R, et al
      . Effect of patient-centered care on patient satisfaction and quality of care. J Nurs Care Qual 2008;23:316–21.doi:10.1097/01.NCQ.0000336672.02725.a5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18806645
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Lockwood C,
      2. Munn Z,
      3. Porritt K
      . Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015;13:179–87.doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26262565
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      Transforming and scaling up health professionals' education and training: World Health organization guidelines. Available: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/transforming-and-scaling-up-health-professionals%E2%80%99-education-and-training [Accessed Jan 2020].
    23. ↵
      EPPI reviewer 4 for systematic reviews. Available: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?alias=eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/er4 [Accessed Jan 2020].
    24. ↵
      1. Mahtani KR,
      2. Heneghan C,
      3. Aronson J
      . Single screening or double screening for study selection in systematic reviews? BMJ Evid Based Med 2020;25:149–50.doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111269pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31722997
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      1. Lincoln YS,
      2. Guba EG
      . Naturalistic inquiry. 11. Beverly Hills; London: SageChapter, 1985: 293.
      OpenUrl
    26. ↵
      1. Lockwood C,
      2. Porrit K,
      3. Munn Z
      , eds. JBI Reviewer’s Manual - Chapter 2: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), 2017.
    27. ↵
      1. Aromataris E
      . Chapter 2. In: Munn Z, ed. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual, 2017.
    28. ↵
      NVivo for qualitative research. Available: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home [Accessed Mar 2020].
    29. ↵
      1. Bryman A
      . Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
    30. ↵
      1. Liberati A,
      2. Altman DG,
      3. Tetzlaff J, et al
      . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000100.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19621070
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Ford S,
      2. Schofield T,
      3. Hope T
      . What are the ingredients for a successful evidence-based patient choice consultation?: a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:589–602.doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00056-4pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12570976
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. Ford S,
      2. Schofield T,
      3. Hope T
      . Barriers to the evidence-based patient choice (EBPC) consultation. Patient Educ Couns 2002;47:179–85.doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(01)00198-7pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12191542
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. ↵
      1. McLeod H
      . Respect and shared decision making in the clinical encounter. A Video-Reflexive ethnography, 2017
    34. ↵
      1. Aita V,
      2. McIlvain H,
      3. Backer E, et al
      . Patient-Centered care and communication in primary care practice: what is involved? Patient Educ Couns 2005;58:296–304.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2004.12.008pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16122641
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    35. ↵
      1. Davis K,
      2. Bellini P,
      3. Hagerman C, et al
      . Physicians' perceptions of factors influencing the treatment decision-making process for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2017;107:86–95.doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.02.056pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28454988
      OpenUrlPubMed
    36. ↵
      1. Feiring E,
      2. Friis T
      . Facilitators and barriers to clinicians' use of COPD action plans in self-management support: a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns 2020;103:693–701.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2019.11.002pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31733986
      OpenUrlPubMed
    37. ↵
      1. Friedberg MW,
      2. Van Busum K,
      3. Wexler R, et al
      . A demonstration of shared decision making in primary care highlights barriers to adoption and potential remedies. Health Aff 2013;32:268–75.doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1084pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23381519
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    38. ↵
      1. Golden SE,
      2. Thomas CR,
      3. Moghanaki D, et al
      . Dumping the information bucket: a qualitative study of clinicians caring for patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Patient Educ Couns 2017;100:861–70.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2016.12.023pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28034611
      OpenUrlPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. Gruß I,
      2. McMullen CK
      . Barriers to eliciting patient goals and values in shared decision-making breast cancer surgery consultations: an ethnographic and interview study. Psychooncology 2019;28:2233–9 http://ezproxy-prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk:2094/doi:10.1002/pon.5212pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31461197
      OpenUrlPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Hisham R,
      2. Liew SM,
      3. Ng CJ, et al
      . Rural doctors' views on and experiences with evidence-based medicine: the freedom qualitative study. PLoS One 2016;11:e0152649.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152649pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27031700
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Salter C,
      2. Shiner A,
      3. Lenaghan E, et al
      . Setting goals with patients living with multimorbidity: qualitative analysis of general practice consultations. Br J Gen Pract 2019;69:e479–88.doi:10.3399/bjgp19X704129pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31160370
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    42. ↵
      1. Shepherd HL,
      2. Butow PN,
      3. Tattersall MHN
      . Factors which motivate cancer doctors to involve their patients in reaching treatment decisions. Patient Educ Couns 2011;84:229–35.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.10.018pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21112174
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    43. ↵
      1. Shortus T,
      2. Kemp L,
      3. McKenzie S, et al
      . 'Managing patient involvement': provider perspectives on diabetes decision-making. Health Expect 2013;16:189–98.doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00700.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21645187
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. Tracy CS,
      2. Dantas GC,
      3. Upshur REG
      . Evidence-Based medicine in primary care: qualitative study of family physicians. BMC Fam Pract 2003;4:6.doi:10.1186/1471-2296-4-6pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12740025
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Van Humbeeck L,
      2. Malfait S,
      3. Holvoet E, et al
      . Value discrepancies between nurses and patients: a survey study. Nurs Ethics 2020;27:1044–55.doi:10.1177/0969733020906595pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32216570
      OpenUrlPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Vermunt N,
      2. Elwyn G,
      3. Westert G, et al
      . Goal setting is insufficiently recognised as an essential part of shared decision-making in the complex care of older patients: a framework analysis. BMC Fam Pract 2019;20:76.doi:10.1186/s12875-019-0966-zpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31170920
      OpenUrlPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Visser LNC,
      2. Schepers S,
      3. Tollenaar MS, et al
      . Patients' and oncologists' views on how oncologists may best address patients' emotions during consultations: an interview study. Patient Educ Couns 2018;101:1223–31.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.02.012pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29534845
      OpenUrlPubMed
    48. ↵
      1. Zulman DM,
      2. Haverfield MC,
      3. Shaw JG, et al
      . Practices to foster physician presence and connection with patients in the clinical encounter. JAMA 2020;323:70–81.doi:10.1001/jama.2019.19003pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31910284
      OpenUrlPubMed
    49. ↵
      1. Chhabra KR,
      2. Pollak KI,
      3. Lee SJ, et al
      . Physician communication styles in initial consultations for hematological cancer. Patient Educ Couns 2013;93:573–8.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.023pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24035463
      OpenUrlPubMed
    50. ↵
      1. Ford S,
      2. Schofield T,
      3. Hope T
      . Observing decision-making in the general practice consultation: who makes which decisions? Health Expect 2006;9:130–7.doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00382.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16677192
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    51. ↵
      1. Landmark AMD,
      2. Svennevig J,
      3. Gulbrandsen P
      . Negotiating treatment preferences: physicians' formulations of patients' stance. Soc Sci Med 2016;149:26–36.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.035pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26699275
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Murdoch J,
      2. Salter C,
      3. Ford J, et al
      . The "unknown territory" of goal-setting: Negotiating a novel interactional activity within primary care doctor-patient consultations for patients with multiple chronic conditions. Soc Sci Med 2020;256:113040.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113040pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32473530
      OpenUrlPubMed
    53. ↵
      1. Pieterse AH,
      2. Henselmans I,
      3. de Haes HCJM, et al
      . Shared decision making: prostate cancer patients' appraisal of treatment alternatives and oncologists' eliciting and responding behavior, an explorative study. Patient Educ Couns 2011;85:e251–9.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.05.012pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21658883
      OpenUrlPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. Elwyn G,
      2. Edwards A,
      3. Kinnersley P, et al
      . Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50:892.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11141876
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    55. ↵
      1. Kennedy BM,
      2. Rehman M,
      3. Johnson WD, et al
      . Healthcare providers versus patients' understanding of health beliefs and values. Patient Exp J 2017;4:29–37.doi:10.35680/2372-0247.1237pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29308429
      OpenUrlPubMed
    56. ↵
      1. Paiva D,
      2. Abreu L,
      3. Azevedo A, et al
      . Patient-Centered communication in type 2 diabetes: the facilitating and constraining factors in clinical encounters. Health Serv Res 2019;54:623–35.doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13126pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30815858
      OpenUrlPubMed
    57. ↵
      1. Schulman-Green DJ,
      2. Naik AD,
      3. Bradley EH, et al
      . Goal setting as a shared decision making strategy among clinicians and their older patients. Patient Educ Couns 2006;63:145–51.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.09.010pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16406471
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    58. ↵
      1. Hart PL,
      2. Mareno N
      . Cultural challenges and barriers through the voices of nurses. J Clin Nurs 2014;23:2223–33.doi:10.1111/jocn.12500pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24373028
      OpenUrlPubMed
    59. ↵
      1. Hall JA
      . Clinicians’ accuracy in perceiving patients: Its relevance for clinical practice and a narrative review of methods and correlates. Patient Educ Couns 2011;84:319–24.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.03.006pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21592718
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    60. ↵
      1. Jefford M,
      2. Tattersall MHN
      . Informing and involving cancer patients in their own care. Lancet Oncol 2002;3:629–37.doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(02)00877-Xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12372725
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    61. ↵
      1. Iedema R,
      2. Carroll K,
      3. Collier A
      . Video-reflexive ethnography in health research and healthcare improvement : theory and application. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2018.
    62. ↵
      1. Salloch S,
      2. Otte IC,
      3. Reinacher-Schick A, et al
      . [Physician perspectives on the impact of patient preferences and the role of next-of-kin of patients in evidence-based decision-making: A qualitative interview study from oncology]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2018;131-132:46–52.doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2018.02.002pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29544714
      OpenUrlPubMed
    63. ↵
      1. Contreary K,
      2. Collins A,
      3. Rich EC
      . Barriers to evidence-based physician decision-making at the point of care: a narrative literature review. J Comp Eff Res 2017;6:51–63.doi:10.2217/cer-2016-0043pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27935741
      OpenUrlPubMed
    64. ↵
      1. Covvey JR,
      2. Kamal KM,
      3. Gorse EE, et al
      . Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in oncology: a systematic review of the literature. Support Care Cancer 2019;27:1613–37.doi:10.1007/s00520-019-04675-7pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30737578
      OpenUrlPubMed
    65. ↵
      1. Dwamena F,
      2. Holmes-Rovner M,
      3. Gaulden CM, et al
      . Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD003267.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003267.pub2pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23235595
      OpenUrlPubMed
    66. ↵
      1. Harrington J,
      2. Noble LM,
      3. Newman SP
      . Improving patients' communication with doctors: a systematic review of intervention studies. Patient Educ Couns 2004;52:7–16.doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00017-Xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14729285
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    67. ↵
      1. Lewin SA,
      2. Skea ZC,
      3. Entwistle V
      . Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001:CD003267.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003267pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11687181
    68. ↵
      1. Stacey D,
      2. Légaré F,
      3. Lewis K, et al
      . Decision AIDS for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;4:CD001431.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28402085
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    69. ↵
      1. Gravel K,
      2. Légaré F,
      3. Graham ID
      . Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Implement Sci 2006;1:16.doi:10.1186/1748-5908-1-16pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16899124
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    70. ↵
      1. Harrison M,
      2. Milbers K,
      3. Hudson M, et al
      . Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014719.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014719pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515194
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    71. ↵
      1. Johnson RA,
      2. Huntley A,
      3. Hughes RA, et al
      . Interventions to support shared decision making for hypertension: a systematic review of controlled studies. Health Expect 2018;21:1191–207 http://ezproxy-prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk:2094/doi:10.1111/hex.12826pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30221454
      OpenUrlPubMed
    72. ↵
      1. Laidsaar-Powell RC,
      2. Butow PN,
      3. Bu S, et al
      . Physician-patient-companion communication and decision-making: a systematic review of triadic medical consultations. Patient Educ Couns 2013;91:3–13.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2012.11.007pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23332193
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    73. ↵
      1. Légaré F,
      2. Ratté S,
      3. Gravel K, et al
      . Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Patient Educ Couns 2008;73:526–35.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.018pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18752915
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    74. ↵
      1. Mangin D,
      2. Stephen G,
      3. Bismah V, et al
      . Making patient values visible in healthcare: a systematic review of tools to assess patient treatment priorities and preferences in the context of multimorbidity. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010903.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010903pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27288377
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    75. ↵
      1. Marsh K,
      2. Caro JJ,
      3. Hamed A, et al
      . Amplifying each patient's voice: a systematic review of Multi-criteria decision analyses involving patients. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2017;15:155–62.doi:10.1007/s40258-016-0299-1pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27928659
      OpenUrlPubMed
    76. ↵
      1. Truglio-Londrigan M,
      2. Slyer JT
      . Shared decision-making for nursing practice: an integrative review. Open Nurs J 2018;12:1–14.doi:10.2174/1874434601812010001pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29456779
      OpenUrlPubMed
    77. ↵
      1. Truglio-Londrigan M,
      2. Slyer JT,
      3. Singleton JK, et al
      . A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings. JBI Libr Syst Rev 2012;10:4633–46.doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2012-432pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27820528
      OpenUrlPubMed
    78. ↵
      1. Zwolsman S,
      2. te Pas E,
      3. Hooft L, et al
      . Barriers to GPs' use of evidence-based medicine: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2012;62:e511–21.doi:10.3399/bjgp12X652382pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22781999
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    79. ↵
      1. Waffenschmidt S,
      2. Knelangen M,
      3. Sieben W, et al
      . Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:132.doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31253092
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    80. ↵
      1. Doyle C,
      2. Lennox L,
      3. Bell D
      . A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open 2013;3:e001570.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23293244
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    81. ↵
      1. Lewis DK,
      2. Robinson J,
      3. Wilkinson E
      . Factors involved in deciding to start preventive treatment: qualitative study of clinicians' and lay people's attitudes. BMJ 2003;327:841.doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7419.841pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14551099
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    82. ↵
      1. Henschen BL,
      2. Ryan ER,
      3. Evans DB, et al
      . Perceptions of patient-centered care among first-year medical students. Teach Learn Med 2019;31:26–33.doi:10.1080/10401334.2018.1468260pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29847155
      OpenUrlPubMed
    83. ↵
      1. Armstrong MJ,
      2. Mullins CD
      . Value assessment at the point of care: incorporating patient values throughout care delivery and a draft taxonomy of patient values. Value Health 2017;20:292–5.doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.008pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28237212
      OpenUrlPubMed
    84. ↵
      1. Back AL,
      2. Fromme EK,
      3. Meier DE
      . Training clinicians with communication skills needed to match medical treatments to patient values. J Am Geriatr Soc 2019;67:S435–41.doi:10.1111/jgs.15709pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31074864
      OpenUrlPubMed
    85. ↵
      1. O'Connor A
      . Using patient decision AIDS to promote evidence-based decision making. ACP J Club 2001;135:100.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11471526
      OpenUrlPubMed
    86. ↵
      1. Brace C,
      2. Schmocker S,
      3. Huang H, et al
      . Physicians' awareness and attitudes toward decision AIDS for patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2286–92.doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.25.2874pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20354133
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    87. ↵
      1. Sackett DL,
      2. Straus S,
      3. Richardson W
      . Evidence-based medicine : how to practice and teach EBM. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
      1. Dyrbye LN,
      2. Varkey P,
      3. Boone SL, et al
      . Physician satisfaction and burnout at different career stages. Mayo Clin Proc 2013;88:1358–67.doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.07.016pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24290109
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @tringm

    • Contributors As principal investigator, MT led the planning, conduct and reporting of the study, submitted the manuscript and is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. As research assistant, GS contributed to the conduct of the literature screening and review as well as provided review and editing of the manuscript. As research supervisors, A-MB and CH contributed to the planning, oversight and reporting, as well as provided review and editing of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests CH receives grant funding from the NIHR School of Primary Care Research. He has received financial remuneration from an asbestos case and given legal advice on mesh and hormone pregnancy tests cases. He has received expenses and fees for his media work, for teaching EBM and is also paid for his GP work in NHS out of hours. He has also received income from the publication of a series of toolkit books and for appraising treatment recommendations in non-NHS settings. He is Director of CEBM and former editor-in-chief of BMJ-EBM. No competing interests for other authors.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.