Background. Values clarification, or sorting out what matters to a patient or family relevant to a health decision, is a fundamental part of shared decision making. We aimed to describe how values clarification occurs in routine primary care. Methods. Using framework analysis and an established taxonomy, 2 independent researchers analyzed 260 consultations in 5 family medicine clinics across Quebec. Two questions guided our analyses: 1) What categories exist regarding what matters to patients? 2) What patterns exist in discussions of what matters to patients? Results. 1) Five distinct categories of what matters to patients and families were discussed during values clarification: preferences, concerns, treatment-specific values, life goals or philosophies, and broader contextual or sociocultural values. Preferences and concerns were the matters most commonly raised. 2) Diverse patterns of values clarification emerged based on 3 analytical questions: Who initiates the discussion about what matters to patients? When? What information is discussed? The most frequent pattern was clinicians soliciting patients’ concerns and preferences during the information-gathering phase. The second most common pattern was similar, except that patients’ spontaneously raised what matters to them. Limitations. The study was descriptive and based on audio-recorded visits. We did not interview patients and clinicians to elicit their perspectives. Conclusions. There are 5 distinct categories of what matters to patients and families as well as clear patterns of how values clarification occurs in routine primary care consultations. Clinicians could be sensitive to these categories when engaging in the process of values clarification and may wish to pay particular attention to the opening minutes of a consultation. This study provides a structure for future identification of best practices in values clarification.
SackettDLRosenbergWMGrayJAHaynesRBRichardsonWS.Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–2.
2.
CharlesCGafniAWhelanT.Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–92.
3.
MarteauTMDormandyEMichieS.A measure of informed choice. Health Expect. 2001;4(2):99–108.
4.
FagerlinAPignoneMAbhyankarP, et al. Clarifying values: an updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S8.
5.
ElwynGDurandMASongJ, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;359:j4891.
6.
LangEBellNRDickinsonJA, et al. Eliciting patient values and preferences to inform shared decision making in preventive screening. Can Fam Physician. 2018;64(1):28–31.
7.
CharlesCGafniA.The vexing problem of defining the meaning, role and measurement of values in treatment decision-making. J Comp Eff Res. 2014;3(2):197–209.
8.
LimCBerryABLHirschT, et al. Understanding what is most important to individuals with multiple chronic conditions: a qualitative study of patients’ perspectives. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(12):1278–84.
9.
WittemanHOSchererLDGavaruzziT, et al. Design features of explicit values clarification methods: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(4):453–71.
10.
GaleNKHeathGCameronERashidSRedwoodS.Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:117.
11.
DiendéréGDansokhoSCRocqueR, et al. How often do both core competencies of shared decision making occur in family medicine teaching clinics?Can Fam Physician. 2019;65(2):e64–75.
12.
LeeYKLowWYNgCJ.Exploring patient values in medical decision making: a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e80051.
13.
BazeleyP.Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2013.
14.
ZimmermannCDel PiccoloLFinsetA.Cues and concerns by patients in medical consultations: a literature review. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(3):438–63.
15.
PiloteLCôtéLChipenda-DansokhoS, et al. Talking about treatment benefits, harms, and what matters to patients in radiation oncology: an observational study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19(1):84.
16.
ArmstrongMJMullinsCD.Value assessment at the point of care: incorporating patient values throughout care delivery and a draft taxonomy of patient values. Value Health. 2017;20(2):292–5.
17.
LimCBerryABLHirschT, et al. “It just seems outside my health”: how patients with chronic conditions perceive communication boundaries with providers. DIS (Des Interact Syst Conf). 2016;2016:1172–84.
18.
RocqueRLeanzaY.A systematic review of patients’ experiences in communicating with primary care physicians: intercultural encounters and a balance between vulnerability and integrity. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0139577.
19.
SchwartzAWeinerSJBinns-CalveyAWeaverFM.Providers contextualise care more often when they discover patient context by asking: meta-analysis of three primary data sets. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(3):159–63.
20.
RocqueRLevesqueALeanzaYR.Patient participation in medical consultations: the experience of patients from various ethnolinguistic backgrounds. Patient Exp J. 2019;6(1). Available from: https://corpus.ulaval.ca/jspui/handle/20.500.11794/36414
21.
FroschDLMaySGRendleKASTietbohlCElwynG.Authoritarian physicians and patients’ fear of being labeled “difficult” among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Aff. 2012;31(5):1030–8.
22.
LiHZKoehnCDesrochesNGYumY-ODeagleG.Asymmetric talk. Can J Commun. 2007;32:417–33.
Singh OspinaNPhillipsKARodriguez-GutierrezR, et al. Eliciting the patient’s agenda- secondary analysis of recorded clinical encounters. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(1):36–40.
