Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 1119–1124 | Cite as

Is Patients’ Preferred Involvement in Health Decisions Related to Outcomes for Patients with HIV?

  • Mary Catherine Beach
  • Patrick S. Duggan
  • Richard D. Moore
Original Article



Previous studies suggest that patients who are more involved in their medical care have better outcomes.


We sought to compare health care processes and outcomes for patients with HIV based on their preferred level of involvement in health decisions.


Cross-sectional analysis of audio computer-assisted interviews with patients at an urban HIV clinic.


One thousand and twenty-seven patients awaiting an appointment with their primary care provider.


Patients were asked how they preferred to be involved in decisions (doctor makes most or all decisions, doctor and patient share decisions, patient makes all decisions). We also asked patients to rate the quality of communication with their HIV provider, and their self-reported receipt of and adherence to HAART.


Overall, 23% patients preferred that their doctor make all or most decisions, 63% preferred to share decisions with their doctor, and 13% preferred to make all final decisions alone. Compared to patients who prefer to share decisions with their HIV provider, patients who prefer that their provider make all/most decisions were significantly less likely to adhere to HAART (OR [odds ratio] 0.57, 95% CI 0.38–0.86) and patients who preferred to make decisions alone were significantly less likely to receive HAART or to have undetectable HIV RNA in unadjusted analyses (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31–0.87 for receipt of HAART; OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44–0.95 for undetectable HIV RNA). After controlling for potentially confounding patient characteristics and differences in patient ratings of communication quality, patients who preferred that their provider make all/most decisions remained significantly less likely to adhere to HAART (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38–0.89); however, the associations with receipt of HAART and undetectable HIV RNA were no longer significant (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34–1.05 for receipt of HAART; OR 0.80, 95% C.I 0.53–1.20 for undetectable HIV RNA).


Although previous research suggests that more patient involvement in health care decisions is better, this benefit may be reduced when the patient wants to make decisions alone. Future research should explore the extent to which this preference is modifiable so as to improve outcomes.


patient involvement in care patient–provider relationship HIV medication adherence 



Dr. Beach is a Robert Wood Johnson Generalist Physician Faculty Scholar and a recipient of a K-08 grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Other grant support: National Institutes of Health R01 DA11602, K24 DA11602, R21 AA105032.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.


  1. 1.
    Brody DS, Miller SM, Lerman CE, Smith DG, Caputo GC. Patient perception of involvement in medical care: relationship to illness attitudes and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4(6):506–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lerman CE, Brody DS, Caputo GC, Smith DG, Lazaro CG, Wolfson HG. Patients’ perceived involvement in care scale: relationship to attitudes about illness and medical care. J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5(1):29–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaplan SH, Gandek B, Greenfield S, Rogers W, Ware JE, Jr. Patient and visit characteristics related to physicians’ participatory decision-making style. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1995;33(12):1176–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greenfield S, Kaplan SH, Ware JE, Jr. Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102(4):520–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wagner EH, Grothaus LC, Sandhu N, et al. Chronic care clinics for diabetes in primary care: a system-wide randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(4):695–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greenfield S, Kaplan SH, Ware JE, Jr., Yano EM, Frank HJ. Patients’ participation in medical care: effects on blood sugar control and quality of life in diabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3(5):448–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Ritter PL, Laurent D, Hobbs M. Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Eff Clin Pract. 2001;4(6):256–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Stewart AL, et al. Evidence suggesting that a chronic disease self-management program can improve health status while reducing hospitalization: a randomized trial. Med Care. 1999;37(1):5–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hack TF, Degner LF, Watson P, Sinha L. Do patients benefit from participating in medical decision making? Longitudinal follow-up of women with breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2006;15(1):9–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gattellari M, Butow PN, Tattersall MH. Sharing decisions in cancer care. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(12):1865–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Say R, Murtagh M, Thomson R. Patients’ preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(2):102–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harvey RM, Kazis L, Lee AF. Decision-making preference and opportunity in VA ambulatory care patients: association with patient satisfaction. Res Nurs Health. 1999;22(1):39–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wachter RM. AIDS, activism, and the politics of health. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(2):128–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moore RD. Understanding the clinical and economic outcomes of HIV therapy: the Johns Hopkins HIV clinical practice cohort. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1998;17(Suppl 1):S38–S41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S.Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents. URL: (accessed 13 Apr 2005).
  16. 16.
    Chesney MA, Ickovics JR, Chambers DB, et al. Self-reported adherence to antiretroviral medications among participants in HIV clinical trials: the AACTG adherence instruments. Patient Care Committee & Adherence Working Group of the Outcomes Committee of the Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group (AACTG). AIDS Care. 2000 12(3):255–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bohannon RW, Maljanian R, Goethe J. Screening for depression in clinical practice: reliability and validity of a five-item subset of the CES-Depression. Percept Mot Skills. 2003;97(3 Pt 1):855–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beach MC, Keruly J, Moore RD. Is the quality of the patient–provider relationship associated with better adherence and improved health outcomes for patients with HIV? J Gen Intern Med 2006 (in press).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beach MC, Sugarman J, Johnson R, Arbelaez JJ, Duggan PS, Cooper LA. Do patients treated with dignity report more satisfaction, adherence, and preventive care? Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(4):331–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Collins KS, Hughes DL, Doty MM, Ives BL, Edwards JN, Tenney K. Diverse Communities, Common Concerns: Assessing health care quality for minority Americans. New York: The Commonwealth Fund; 2002.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hays RD, Shaul JA, Williams VS, et al. Psychometric properties of the CAHPS 1.0 survey measures. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study. Med Care. 1999;37(3 Suppl):MS22–MS31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mallinger JB, Shields CG, Griggs JJ, et al. Stability of decisional role preference over the course of cancer therapy. Psychooncology. 2006;15(4):297–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Catherine Beach
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Patrick S. Duggan
    • 2
  • Richard D. Moore
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of MedicineJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Berman Institute of BioethicsJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health, Behavior, and SocietyJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical ResearchJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.Department of EpidemiologyJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations