Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: Evidence-Based Practice in Patient-Centered Care

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pediatrician's Guide to Discussing Research with Patients

  • 593 Accesses

Abstract

The current medical model of patient-centered care with shared decision-making places demands on patients and doctors alike. Patients should ideally understand the presented treatment options before providing informed consent. Doctors are tasked with communicating the information relevant to their patients’ decisions. This seemingly simple exchange is complicated by factors occurring outside of the consultation room. Around-the-clock television news programs, pharmaceutical advertising targeted directly to the consumer, and a plethora of Internet sites bombard patients with extensive information of varying accuracy, quality, and personal relevance. As such, physicians increasingly encounter patients presenting to their offices with misconceptions that require correcting in a manner that does not harm the doctor–patient relationship. Doctors who attempt to accurately discuss research findings with their patients discover the insufficient research literacy skills among the average patient. Practicing physicians also grapple with the constantly changing body of scientific literature, as new research findings are incorporated into the preexisting knowledge base. Addressing these two challenges, this work outlines basic research literacy concepts for physicians to communicate to their patients and presents research findings in topic areas of special interest to pediatricians.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Will JF. A brief historical and theoretical perspective on patient autonomy and medical decision making: part I: the beneficence model. Chest J. 2011;139(3):669–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Percival T. Medical ethics, or, a code of institutes and precepts, adapted to the professional conduct of physicians and surgeons. The Classics of Medicine Library; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, King NM. A history and theory of informed consent.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sokol DK. How the doctor’s nose has shortened over time; a historical overview of the truth-telling debate in the doctor-patient relationship. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(12):632–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Will JF. A brief historical and theoretical perspective on patient autonomy and medical decision making: Part II: the autonomy model. CHEST Journal. 2011;139(6):1491–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Trostle JA. The history and meaning of patient compliance as an ideology. In Handbook of Health Behavior Research II 1997. Springer US. pp. 109–24.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sackett DL, Haynes RB. Compliance with therapeutic regimens.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ahmed R, Aslani P. What is patient adherence? A terminology overview. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(1):4–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sandman L, Granger BB, Ekman I, Munthe C. Adherence, shared decision-making and patient autonomy. Med Health Care Philos. 2012;15(2):115–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lehane E, McCarthy G. Medication non-adherence—exploring the conceptual mire. Int J Nurs Pract. 2009;15(1):25–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Aslani P, Krass I, Bajorek B, Thistlethwaite J, Tofler G. Improving adherence in cardiovascular care. A toolkit for health professionals. National Heart Foundation of Australia. 2011:19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dworkin G. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tuckett AG. On paternalism, autonomy and best interests: Telling the (competent) aged-care resident what they want to know. International journal of nursing practice. 2006;12(3):166–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Woolf SH, Chan EC, Harris R, Sheridan SL, Braddock CH, Kaplan RM, Krist A, O’Connor AM, Tunis S. Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(4):293–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kapp MB. Patient autonomy in the age of consumer-driven health care: informed consent and informed choice. J legal Med. 2007;28(1):91–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rodriguez-Osorio CA, Dominguez-Cherit G. Medical decision making: paternalism versus patient-centered (autonomous) care. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008;14(6):708–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Deber RB, Kraetschmer N, Urowitz S, Sharpe N. Do people want to be autonomous patients? Preferred roles in treatment decision-making in several patient populations. Health Expect. 2007;10(3):248–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P. Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation. Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49(443):477–82.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Sabaté E. Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action. World Health Organization; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Entwistle VA, Sheldon TA, Sowden A, Watt IS. Evidence-informed patient choice: practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14(02):212–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Murray E, Pollack L, White M, Lo B. Clinical decision-making: Patients’ preferences and experiences. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(2):189–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McNutt RA. Shared medical decision making: problems, process, progress. JAMA. 2004;292(20):2516–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ellis SJ, Matthews C, Weather SJ. Informed consent is flawed. Lancet. 2001;357(9250):149–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoffman, J. (2005). Awash in information, patients face a lonely, uncertain road. New York Times, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chatterton HT. Efficacy, risk, and the determination of value: shared medical decision making in the age of information. J Fam Pract. 1999;48(7):505.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Murray E, Pollack L, White M, Lo B. Clinical decision-making: physicians’ preferences and experiences. BMC Fam Pract. 2007;8(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bradley CP. Uncomfortable prescribing decisions: a critical incident study. BMJ. 1992;304(6822):294–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Naylor CD. Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidence-based medicine. Lancet. 1995;345(8953):840–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith R. What clinical information do doctors need? BMJ. 1996;313(7064):1062–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Gorman PN, Helfand M. Information seeking in primary care how physicians choose which clinical questions to pursue and which to leave unanswered. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(2):113–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Edwards A, Matthews E, Pill R, Bloor M. Communication about risk: diversity among primary care professionals. Fam Pract. 1998;15(4):296–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Patel N. Why your brain struggles with probability. Inverse. 2016. https://www.inverse.com/article/6339-why-people-suck-at-understanding-probability. Accessed 21 March 2016.

  33. Evans W. Faults in the diagnosis and management of cardiac pain. Br Med J. 1959;1(5117):249.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Alfandre D, Schumann JH. What is wrong with discharges against medical advice (and how to fix them). JAMA. 2013;310(22):2393–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Child Study Center, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA

    Christina A. Di Bartolo

  2. Department of Pediatrics, The Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York, USA

    Maureen K. Braun

Authors
  1. Christina A. Di Bartolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maureen K. Braun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina A. Di Bartolo .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Di Bartolo, C.A., Braun, M.K. (2017). Introduction: Evidence-Based Practice in Patient-Centered Care. In: Pediatrician's Guide to Discussing Research with Patients. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49547-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49547-7_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-49546-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-49547-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation