» Articles » PMID: 27354076

Prevalence of Clinically Significant Decisional Conflict: an Analysis of Five Studies on Decision-making in Primary Care

Overview
Journal BMJ Open
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2016 Jun 30
PMID 27354076
Citations 28
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: Unresolved clinically significant decisional conflict (CSDC) in patients following a consultation with health professionals is often the result of inadequate patient involvement in decision-making and may result in poor outcomes. We sought to identify the prevalence of CSDC in studies on decision-making in primary care and to explore its risk factors.

Setting: We performed a secondary analysis of existing data sets from studies conducted in Primary Care Practice-Based Research Networks in Québec and Ontario, Canada.

Participants: Eligible studies included a patient-reported measure on the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) following a decision made with a healthcare professional with no study design restriction.

Primary And Secondary Outcome Measures: CSDC was defined as a score ≥25/100 on the DCS. The prevalence of CSDC was stratified by sex; and patient-level logistic regression analysis was performed to explore its potential risk factors. Data sets of studies were analysed individually and qualitatively compared.

Results: 5 projects conducted between 2003 and 2010 were included. They covered a range of decisions: prenatal genetic screening, antibiotics for acute respiratory infections and miscellaneous. Altogether, the 5 projects gathered data from encounters with a total of 1338 primary care patients (69% female; range of age 15-83). The prevalence of CSDC in patients varied across studies and ranged from 10.3% (95% CI 7.2% to 13.4%) to 31.1% (95% CI 26.6% to 35.6%). Across the 5 studies, risk factors of CSDC included being male, living alone and being 45 or older.

Conclusions: Prevalence of CSDC in patients who had enrolled in studies conducted in primary care contexts was substantial and appeared to vary according to the type of decision as well as to patient characteristics such as sex, living arrangement and age. Patients presenting risk factors of CSDC should be offered tools to increase their involvement in decision-making.

Citing Articles

Power asymmetry and embarrassment in shared decision-making: predicting participation preference and decisional conflict.

Scherer K, Budenbender B, Blum A, Grune B, Kriegmair M, Michel M BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2025; 25(1):120.

PMID: 40065322 PMC: 11892210. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-025-02938-4.


A study protocol for individualized prognostic counselling in the palliative phase.

van den Besselaar B, Sewnaik A, Dorr M, Hoesseini A, Hardillo J, Baatenburg de Jong R BMC Palliat Care. 2025; 24(1):9.

PMID: 39794711 PMC: 11720302. DOI: 10.1186/s12904-025-01647-z.


People living with chronic pain in Canada face difficult decisions and decisional conflict concerning their care: data from the national DECIDE-PAIN survey.

Naye F, Legare F, Cachinho C, Gerard T, Toupin-April K, Sasseville M BMC Prim Care. 2024; 25(1):424.

PMID: 39702110 PMC: 11657379. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-024-02667-z.


Theory-based behavior change intervention to increase uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant: The PREVENT randomized controlled trial.

Metcalfe K, Pal T, Narod S, Armel S, Shickh S, Buckley K Cancer Med. 2023; 12(17):18246-18257.

PMID: 37602539 PMC: 10524042. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6417.


Decisional needs assessment for patient-centred pain care in Canada: the DECIDE-PAIN study protocol.

Naye F, Legare F, Paquette J, Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Leblanc A, Gaboury I BMJ Open. 2023; 13(5):e066189.

PMID: 37156591 PMC: 10173373. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066189.


References
1.
Knops A, Goossens A, Ubbink D, Legemate D, Stalpers L, Bossuyt P . Interpreting patient decisional conflict scores: behavior and emotions in decisions about treatment. Med Decis Making. 2012; 33(1):78-84. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12453500. View

2.
Ware Jr J, Kosinski M, Keller S . A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996; 34(3):220-33. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003. View

3.
Legare F, St-Jacques S, Gagnon S, Njoya M, Brisson M, Fremont P . Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a survey of willingness in women and family physicians to engage in shared decision-making. Prenat Diagn. 2011; 31(4):319-26. DOI: 10.1002/pd.2624. View

4.
Ioannidis J . Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8):e124. PMC: 1182327. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. View

5.
Montgomery A, Emmett C, Fahey T, Jones C, Ricketts I, Patel R . Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007; 334(7607):1305. PMC: 1895676. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39217.671019.55. View