Shared decision making in hypertension: the impact of patient preferences on treatment choice
Open Access
- 1 June 2001
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Family Practice
- Vol. 18 (3) , 309-313
- https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/18.3.309
Abstract
Background.Recent guidelines for treatment of hypertension advocate a multifactorial approach based on absolute risk of a cardiovascular event. However, this does not take any account of individual patient values or preferences for health outcomes that result from having hypertension. Objective.Our aim was to investigate the impact of patient preferences on treatment recommendations for hypertension using individual decision analysis. Methods.We carried out an observational study based on interviews with 52 hypertensive patients. Patient preferences were measured using the standard gamble method. Associations between outcome of the individual decision analyses (recommendation to accept or decline antihypertensive medication) and treatment guidelines based on blood pressure and absolute cardiovascular risk were investigated. Adherence to medication during the 6 months following the interview was also assessed. Results.Individual patient preferences have a substantial impact on the proportion of patients for whom drug treatment would be recommended. In 52 patients interviewed, decision analysis indicated that 29 [56%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 41–70] should be treated, compared with 27 (52%, 38–66) using a cardiovascular risk of ≥10% over 5 years and 19 (37%, 24–51) using a systolic blood pressure of ≥160 mmHg. There was marked disagreement between the decision analysis and these recommendations (kappas 0.18 or less). There was no relationship between outcome of the decision analysis and adherence to medication [chi-square (1 d.f.) = 0.5, P = 0.5]. Conclusions.Quantifying patients' preferences and using decision analysis as a shared decision-making aid appears to have an impact on whether patients would be recommended for antihypertensive medication. Further evaluation of this method as a shared decision-making tool is warranted.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic reviewBMJ, 1999
- Guidelines for management of hypertension: report of the third working party of the British Hypertension SocietyJournal of Human Hypertension, 1999
- A simple computer program for guiding management of cardiovascular risk factors and prescribingBMJ, 1999
- Getting research findings into practice: Decision analysis and the implementation of research findingsBMJ, 1998
- Coronary event and case fatality rates in an English population: results of the Oxford myocardial infarction incidence studyHeart, 1998
- Randomised, double blind, multicentre comparison of hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, nitrendipine, and enalapril in antihypertensive treatment: results of the HANE studyBMJ, 1997
- Automated utility assessment of global healthQuality of Life Research, 1996
- Cardiovascular disease risk profilesAmerican Heart Journal, 1991
- A prospective study of acute cerebrovascular disease in the community: the Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project--1981-86. 2. Incidence, case fatality rates and overall outcome at one year of cerebral infarction, primary intracerebral and subarachnoid haemorrhage.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 1990
- Guiding individual decisions: A randomized, controlled trial of decision analysisThe American Journal of Medicine, 1988