Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 11-12/2012

01.06.2012 | original article

Patient autonomy and informed consent—individual preferences of senior study participants in Germany

verfasst von: Wolfgang Strube, Prof Florian Steger, MD

Erschienen in: Wiener klinische Wochenschrift | Ausgabe 11-12/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Summary

The majority of therapeutic decision-making takes place between therapists and elderly people. The present study sought to determine the individual preferences of elderly people in the therapist–patient interaction. From October 2010 to January 2011, data from elderly students (n = 297, mean age  > 60) were collected at three different university sites in Germany (Halle-Wittenberg, Cologne and Munich). The study used a structured questionnaire. Younger students (n = 182, mean age = 20.5) at the University of Halle-Wittenberg were questioned as well, in order to show age-specific differences. None of the participants was hospitalised. At the University of Munich, elderly students (n = 42) were given interaction-skill training for patients prior to taking part in the study. The effect of the intervention was measured in the study. Elderly participants and especially those with higher morbidity and a poorer state of information about their state of health refused to get involved in the process of medical decision-making. A group of elderly participants who received special interaction-skill training for patients afterwards preferred an equal therapist–patient relationship as well as shared decision-making. Younger participants favored an informative–participative interaction. The guidelines of therapeutic decision-making that are applied in practise do not always meet the individual needs of the elderly. Interaction-skill training for patients has great potential to both: encourage patients to get involved in the process of medical decision-making and to assume more autonomy. Hence, the aim should be to compound autonomy-empowerment and interaction-skill training for elderly people.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Dalla-Vorgia P, Lascaratos J, Skiadas P, Garanis-Papadatos T. Is consent in medicine a concept only of modern times? J Med Ethics. 2001;27(1):59–61. Dalla-Vorgia P, Lascaratos J, Skiadas P, Garanis-Papadatos T. Is consent in medicine a concept only of modern times? J Med Ethics. 2001;27(1):59–61.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Rauprich O, Steger F, editors. Prinzipienethik in der Biomedizin. Moralphilosophie und medizinische Praxis. Frankfurt am Main: Campus; 2005. Rauprich O, Steger F, editors. Prinzipienethik in der Biomedizin. Moralphilosophie und medizinische Praxis. Frankfurt am Main: Campus; 2005.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Arora N, McHorney C. Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate? Med Care. 2000;38(3):325–341.CrossRef Arora N, McHorney C. Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate? Med Care. 2000;38(3):325–341.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Hamann J, Hein J, Kissling W. Patientenempowerment – eine wirksame Strategie zur Foerderung der Patientenbeteiligung bei medizinischen Entscheidungen. In: Loh A, Haerter M, Spies C, editors. Gemeinsam entscheiden – erfolgreich behandeln. Köln: Deutscher Ärtzeverlag; 2005. pp. 45–51. Hamann J, Hein J, Kissling W. Patientenempowerment – eine wirksame Strategie zur Foerderung der Patientenbeteiligung bei medizinischen Entscheidungen. In: Loh A, Haerter M, Spies C, editors. Gemeinsam entscheiden – erfolgreich behandeln. Köln: Deutscher Ärtzeverlag; 2005. pp. 45–51.
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted RA. Not all patients want to participate in decision making. A national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(6):531–5. Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted RA. Not all patients want to participate in decision making. A national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(6):531–5.
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Loh A, Haerter M, Spies C. Gemeinsam entscheiden – erfolgreich behandeln. Köln: Deutscher Ärzteverlag; 2005. Loh A, Haerter M, Spies C. Gemeinsam entscheiden – erfolgreich behandeln. Köln: Deutscher Ärzteverlag; 2005.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Wear S. Informed consent: patient autonomy and physician beneficence within clinical medicine (Clinical Medical Ethics) Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands; 2010. Wear S. Informed consent: patient autonomy and physician beneficence within clinical medicine (Clinical Medical Ethics) Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands; 2010.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Oppenheim AN. Questionaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Pinter Publishers; 1992. Oppenheim AN. Questionaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Pinter Publishers; 1992.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Giersdorf N, Loh A, Bieber C, Caspari C, Deinzer A, Doering T, et al. Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2004;47(10):969–76. Giersdorf N, Loh A, Bieber C, Caspari C, Deinzer A, Doering T, et al. Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2004;47(10):969–76.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Giersdorf N, Loh A, Haerter M. Measuring shared decision making. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitaetssich. 2004;98(2):135–41. Giersdorf N, Loh A, Haerter M. Measuring shared decision making. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitaetssich. 2004;98(2):135–41.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Redman BK. Review of measurement instruments in clinical and research ethics1999–2003. J Med Ethics. 2006;32(3):153–6.PubMedCrossRef Redman BK. Review of measurement instruments in clinical and research ethics1999–2003. J Med Ethics. 2006;32(3):153–6.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Simon D, Loh A, Haerter M. Measuring (shared) decision-making—a review of psychometric instruments. Z Aerztl Fortbild Qualitaetssich. 2007;101(4):259–67. Simon D, Loh A, Haerter M. Measuring (shared) decision-making—a review of psychometric instruments. Z Aerztl Fortbild Qualitaetssich. 2007;101(4):259–67.
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Stiggelbout AM, Molewijk AC, Otten W, Timmermans DR, van Bockel JH, Kievit J. Ideals of patient autonomy in clinical decision making: a study on the development of a scale to assess patients’ and physicians’ views. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(3):268–74. Stiggelbout AM, Molewijk AC, Otten W, Timmermans DR, van Bockel JH, Kievit J. Ideals of patient autonomy in clinical decision making: a study on the development of a scale to assess patients’ and physicians’ views. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(3):268–74.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Strube W, Pfeiffer M, Steger F. Moralische Positionen, medizinethische Kenntnisse und Motivation im Laufe des Medizinstudiums – Ergebnisse einer Querschnittsstudie an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Ethik Med. 2011;23(3):201–16.CrossRef Strube W, Pfeiffer M, Steger F. Moralische Positionen, medizinethische Kenntnisse und Motivation im Laufe des Medizinstudiums – Ergebnisse einer Querschnittsstudie an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Ethik Med. 2011;23(3):201–16.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Sugarman J, Sulmasy D. Methods in medical ethics. Washington: Georgetown University Press; 2001. Sugarman J, Sulmasy D. Methods in medical ethics. Washington: Georgetown University Press; 2001.
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A. What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ. 1999;319(7212):780–2.PubMedCrossRef Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A. What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ. 1999;319(7212):780–2.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosen P, Anell A, Hjortsberg C. Patient views on choice and participation in primary health care. Health Policy. 2001;55(2):121–8.PubMedCrossRef Rosen P, Anell A, Hjortsberg C. Patient views on choice and participation in primary health care. Health Policy. 2001;55(2):121–8.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Janssen NB, Oort FJ, Fockens P, Willems DL, de Haes HC, Smets EM. Under what conditions do patients want to be informed about their risk of a complication? A vignette study. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(5):276–82. Janssen NB, Oort FJ, Fockens P, Willems DL, de Haes HC, Smets EM. Under what conditions do patients want to be informed about their risk of a complication? A vignette study. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(5):276–82.
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Catalan J, Brener N, Andrews H, Day A, Cullum S, Hooker M, et al. Whose health is it? Views about decision-making and information-seeking from people with HIV infection and their professional carers. AIDS Care. 1994;6(3):349–56. Catalan J, Brener N, Andrews H, Day A, Cullum S, Hooker M, et al. Whose health is it? Views about decision-making and information-seeking from people with HIV infection and their professional carers. AIDS Care. 1994;6(3):349–56.
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Simon D, Loh A, Haerter M. Development and evaluation of interventions to support shared decision making—framework and measuring instruments. Z Med Psychol. 2008;17(4):149–59. Simon D, Loh A, Haerter M. Development and evaluation of interventions to support shared decision making—framework and measuring instruments. Z Med Psychol. 2008;17(4):149–59.
Metadaten
Titel
Patient autonomy and informed consent—individual preferences of senior study participants in Germany
verfasst von
Wolfgang Strube
Prof Florian Steger, MD
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2012
Verlag
Springer Vienna
Erschienen in
Wiener klinische Wochenschrift / Ausgabe 11-12/2012
Print ISSN: 0043-5325
Elektronische ISSN: 1613-7671
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-012-0187-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11-12/2012

Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 11-12/2012 Zur Ausgabe