Background . A major challenge in surgery is the integration of evidence-based medicine and patient autonomy. The authors present a randomized trial studying the effect of an individualized evidence-based brochure (IB) on patients' autonomous behavior, patients' ideals of autonomy, and quality of life.Method. Patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aneurysm and their surgeon were randomized to receive a general brochure (GB) or an IB presenting survival information and a ranking of the treatment strategies. Before and after receiving the brochure, patients filled out questionnaires on their behavior during the consultation, ideals of patient autonomy, and quality of life. Surgeons answered a short checklist evaluating the consultation.Results. One hundred patients participated, 49 in the intervention, 51 in the control group. The IB group had a better understanding of important issues in the treatment decision, had prepared more questions, and was less satisfied with the duration of the consultation. Their impression that the surgeon perceived them more as a medical problem than a patient with a problem increased. They agreed less with the surgeon's advice and lost some of their belief in ``the doctor knows best.'' Beforehand, the IB group had a stronger preference for patient-based decisions, but afterward they displayed more surgeon-based decisions. No effects were seen on patients' quality of life.Conclusions. Individualized evidence-based information stimulated patients' active involvement but in the context of our study led to less patient-based decisions. Patient-made decisions and patient autonomy should, however, not be equated.
Sackett D.Evidence Based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.
2.
Holmes-Rovner M., Kroll J., Rovner DR, et al. Patient decision support intervention: increased consistency with decision analytic models. Med Care . 1999;37(3):270-84.
3.
Edwards A., Elwyn G.Evidence-Based Patient Choice. Inevitable or Impossible?New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
4.
Entwistle VA , Sheldon TA, Sowden A., Watt ISEvidence-informed patient choice. Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14(2):212-25.
5.
Protheroe J. , Fahey T., Montgomery AA, Peters TJThe impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis. BMJ. 2000; 320(7246):1380-4.
6.
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.
7.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JFPrinciples of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994.
8.
Auerbach SMDo patients want control over their own health care? A review of measures, findings, and research issues. J Health Psychol. 2001;6(2):191-203.
9.
Bekker H., Thornton JG, Airey CM, et al. Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(1):1-156.
10.
Schneider CEThe Practice of Autonomy. Patients, Doctors, and Medical Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.
11.
Bates T.Ethics of consent to surgical treatment. Br J Surg. 2001;88(10):1283-4.
12.
Degner LF, Sloan JADecision making during serious illness: what role do patients really want to play? J Clin Epidemiol. 1992; 45(9):941-50.
13.
Falkum E., Forde R.Paternalism, patient autonomy, and moral deliberation in the physician-patient relationship. Attitudes among Norwegian physicians. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(2):239-48.
14.
Steyerberg EW, Kievit J., de Mol Van Otterloo JC, van Bockel JH, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JDPerioperative mortality of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. A clinical prediction rule based on literature and individual patient data. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(18):1998-2004.
15.
Timmermans D., van Bockel H., Kievit J.Improving the quality of surgeons' treatment decisions: a comparison of clinical decision making with a computerised evidence based decision analytical model. Qual Health Care. 2001;10(1):4-9.
16.
Molewijk ACRisky business. Individualised evidence-based decision support and the ideal of patient autonomy [thesis]. Leiden University, 2006.
de Haes JCJM.Kwaliteit van leven van kankerpatiënten [Quality of Life of Cancer Patients]. Amsterdam/ Lisse: Swets-Zeitlinger; 1988.
19.
Ashcroft R., Hope T., Parker M.Ethical issues and evidence based patient choice. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G, editors. Evidence-Based Patient Choice. Inevitable or Impossible?New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 53-65.
20.
Coulter A.Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making . J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997; 2(2):112-21.
Manschot H.Levenskunst of lijfsbehoud? Een humanistische kritiek op het beginsel van autonomie in de gezondheidszorg [Art of Living or to Save One's Life? A Humanitarian Critique on the Principle of Autonomy in Health Care]. Utrecht: Universiteit voor Humanistiek; 1992.
23.
Moody HREthics in an Aging Society. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1992.
24.
Deber RB, Kraetschmer N., Irvine J.What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making? Arch Intern Med. 1996; 156(13):1414-20.
