Patients’ Knowledge about 9 Common Health Conditions: The DECISIONS Survey

Abstract

Background

To make informed decisions, patients must have adequate knowledge of key decision-relevant facts.

Objective

To determine adults’ knowledge about information relevant to common types of medication, screening, or surgery decisions they recently made.

Setting

National sample of US adults identified by random-digit dialing.

Design

Cross-sectional survey conducted between November 2006 and May 2007.

Participants

A total of 2575 English-speaking adults aged 40 y or older who reported having discussed the following medical decisions with a health care provider within the previous 2 y: prescription medications for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or depression; screening tests for colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer; or surgeries for knee/hip replacement, cataracts, or lower back pain.

Measurements

Participants answered knowledge questions and rated the importance of their health care provider, family/friends, and the media as sources of information.

Results

Accuracy rates varied widely across questions and decision contexts. For example, patients considering cataract surgery were more likely to correctly estimate recovery time than those patients considering lower back pain or knee/hip replacement (78% v. 29% and 39%, P < 0.001). Similarly, participants were more knowledgeable of facts about colorectal cancer screening than those who were asked about breast or prostate cancer. Finally, respondents were consistently more knowledgeable on comparable questions about blood pressure medication than cholesterol medication or antidepressants. The impact of demographic characteristics and sources of information also varied substantially. For example, blacks had lower knowledge than whites about cancer screening decisions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.43, 0.75; P = 0.001) and medication (OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.60, 0.97; P = 0.03) even after we controlled for other demographic factors. The same was not true for surgical decisions.

Limitations

The questions did not measure all knowledge relevant to informed decision making, were subject to recall biases, and may have assessed numeracy more than knowledge.

Conclusions

Patient knowledge of key facts relevant to recently made medical decisions is often poor and varies systematically by decision type and patient characteristics. Improving patient knowledge about risks, benefits, and characteristics of medical procedures is essential to support informed decision making.

Keywords

informed decision making patient education knowledge.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Laine

, Davidoff

Patient-centered medicine: a professional evolution. JAMA. 1996; 275: 152–6.

Bernat

, Peterson

LM.

Patient-centered informed consent in surgical practice. Arch Surg. 2006; 141: 86–92.

Rimer

, Briss

, Zeller

, Chan

ECY

, Woolf

SH.

Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening?

Cancer. 2004; 101: 1214–28.

Braddock

III , Edwards

, Hasenberg

, Laidley

, Levinson

Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999; 282: 2313–20.

Braddock

III , Fihn

, Levinson

, Jonsen

, Pearlman

RA.

How doctors and patients discuss routine clinical decisions: informed decision making in the outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1997; 12: 339–45.

Rimer

, Briss

, Zeller

, Chan

ECY

, Woolf

Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening?

Cancer. 2004; 101: 1214–28.

Gafni

, Charles

, Whelan

The physician-patient encounter: the physician as a perfect agent for the patient versus the informed treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1998; 47: 347–54.

Charles

, Gafni

, Whelan

Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999; 49: 651–61.

Alexander

, Gordon

, Davis

, Chen

RS.

Patient knowledge and awareness of hypertension is suboptimal: results from a large health maintenance organization. J Clin Hypertens. 2003; 5: 254–60.

10.

Roche-Nagle

, Chambers

, Nanra

, Bouchier-Hayes

, Young

Evaluation of patient knowledge regarding oral coagulants. Irish Med J. 2003; 96: 211–3.

11.

Scanlan

, Siddiqui

, Perry

, Hutnik

Informed consent for cataract surgery: what patients do and do not understand. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29: 1904–12.

12.

Partin

, Nelson

, Radosevich

Randomized trial examining the effect of two prostate cancer screening educational interventions on patient knowledge, preferences, and behaviors. J Gen Intern Med. 2004; 19: 835–42.

13.

Volk

, Spann

, Cass

, Hawley

Patient education for informed decision making about prostate cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Ann Fam Med. 2003; 1: 22–8.

14.

Fagerlin

, Lakhani

, Lantz

An informed decision? Breast cancer patients and their knowledge about treatment. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 64: 303–12.

15.

Zikmund-Fisher

, Couper

, Singer

The DECISIONS study: a nationwide survey of United States adults regarding 9 common medical decisions. Med Decis Making. 2010; 30 (5): 20S–34S.

16.

Stata Statistical Software. 10th ed. College Station (TX): Stata Corporation; 2007.

17.

Couper

, Singer

, Levin

CA.

Use of the Internet and ratings of information sources for medical decisions: results from the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making. 2010; 30 (5): 106S–114S.

18.

Hoffman

, Lewis

, Pignone

MP.

Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: results from the DECISIONS study. Med Decis Making. 2010; 30 (5): 53S–64S.

19.

Tarn

, Heritage

, Paterniti

, Hays

, Kravitz

, Wenger

NS.

Physician communication when prescribing new medications. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166: 1855–62.

20.

Zikmund-Fisher

, Couper

, Singer

This decision wasn't like that one: variability in patient reports of how common medical decisions are made. Submitted for publication.

21.

O'Connor

, Stacey

, Barry

MJ.

Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27: 554–74.

22.

Lipkus

, Samsa

, Rimer

BK.

General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001; 21: 37–44.

23.

Schwartz

, Woloshin

, Black

, Welch

HG.

The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127: 966–72.

24.

Nelson

, Han

, Fagerlin

, Stefanek

, Ubel

PA.

Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: a call for conceptual clarity. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27: 609–18.

25.

Kennedy

ADM.

On what basis should the effectiveness of decision aids be judged?

Health Expect. 2003; 6: 255–68.

26.

Joint National Committee VI. The 6th report of the Joint National Committee on detection, prevention, evaluation and treatment of high blood pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997; 157: 2413–46.

27.

Joint National Committee VII. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation and treatment of high blood pressure. JAMA. 2003; 289: 2560–71.

28.

Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001; 285: 2486–97.

29.

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Circulation. 2002; 106: 3143–421.

30.

Gueyffier

, Boutitie

, Boissel

Effect of antihypertensive drug treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in women and men: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 126: 761–7.

31.

Mulrow

, Pignone

What are the elements of good treatment for hypertension?

Br Med J. 2001; 322: 1107–9.

32.

Pignone

, Phillips

, Mulrow

Use of lipid lowering drugs for primary prevention of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised trials. Br Med J. 2000; 321: 983–6.

33.

Thavendiranathan

, Bagai

, Brookhart

, Choudhry

NK.

Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases with statin therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166: 2307–13.

34.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Depression: Management of Depression in Primary and Secondary Care. National Practice Guideline Number 23: National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, British Psychological Society and Gaskell. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004.

35.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.

36.

Pasternak

, Smith

, Bairey-Merz

, Grundy

, Cleeman

, Lenfant

ACC/AHA/NHLBI clinical advisory on the use and safety of statins. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40: 567–72.

37.

de Jonghe

, Kool

, van Aalst

, Dekker

, Peen

Combining psychotherapy and antidepressants in the treatment of depression. J Affect Disord. 2001; 64: 217–29.

38.

Mulrow

, Williams

, Chiquette

Efficacy of newer medications for treating depression in primary care patients. Am J Med. 2000; 108: 54–64.

39.

Williams

, Mulrow

, Chiquette

, Noël

, Aguilar

, Cornell

A systematic review of newer pharmacotherapies for depression in adults. Evidence report summary: clinical guideline, part 2. Ann Intern Med. 2000; 132: 743–56.

40.

Ries

, Eisner

, Kosary

, Hankey

, Miller

SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1999. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute; 2002.

41.

Pignone

, Rich

, Teutsch

, Berg

, Lohr

Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002; 137: 132–41.

42.

Gotzsche

, Nielsen

Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:CD001877.

43.

Armstrong

, Moye

, Williams

, Berlin

, Reynolds

Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: a systematic review for the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 146: 516–26.

44.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002; 137: 344–6.

45.

National Cancer Institute. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute; 2008.

46.

Richie

, Catalona

, Ahmann

Effect of patient age on early detection of prostate cancer with serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Urology. 1993; 42: 365–74.

47.

Bayley

, London

, Grunkemeier

, Lansky

Measuring the success of treatment in patient terms. Med Care. 1995; 33: AS226–35.

48.

Weber

Lumbar disc herniation: a controlled, prospective study with ten years of observation. Spine. 1983; 8: 131–40.

49.

Weinstein

, Lurie

, Tosteson

Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) observational cohort. JAMA. 2006; 296: 2451–9.

50.

Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. 2001 Volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine. 2001; 26: 2521–32.

51.

Turner

, Ersek

, Herron

, Deyo

Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine. 1992; 17: 1–8.

52.

Schein

, Steinberg

, Javitt

Variation in cataract surgery practice and clinical outcomes. Opthalmology. 1994; 101: 1142–52.

53.

Aarons

, Hall

, Hughes

, Salmon

Short-term recovery from hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996; 78-B: 555–8.

54.

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Hip Replacement. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services; 2006.

55.

Weinstein

, Tosteson

, Lurie

JD.

Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006; 296: 2441–50.

56.

Spalton

, Koch

The constant evolution of cataract surgery. BMJ. 2000; 321: 1304.

57.

Sharkey

, Shastri

, Teloken

, Parvizi

, Hozack

, Rothman

RH.

Relationship between surgical volume and early outcomes of total hip arthroplasty: do results continue to get better?

J Arthroplast. 2004; 19: 694–9.

58.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Total Knee Replacement. Publication No. 04-E006-2; Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2003.

59.

Malmivaara

, Slatis

, Heliovaara

Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2007; 32: 1–8.

60.

Weinstein

, Tosteson

, Lurie

JD.

Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 794–810.

61.

National Institutes of Health. NIH Consensus Development Conference on Total Knee Replacement. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health; 2003.

62.

Bren

Joint replacement: an inside look. FDA Consumer. 2004(Mar-Apr).

63.

Atlas

, Keller

, Wu

, Deyo

, Singer

DE.

Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the Maine Lumbar Spine Study. Spine. 2005; 30: 936–43.

64.

Chou

, Qaseem

, Snow

Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147: 478–91.

65.

North American Spine Society. Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care: Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Burr Ridge (IL): North American Spine Society; 2007.

66.

Hagen

, Hilde

, Jamtvedt

, Winnem

MF.

The Cochrane Review of advice to stay active as a single treatment for low back pain and sciatica. Spine. 2002; 27: 1736–41.

67.

Javitt

, Steinert

RF.

Cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: A multinational clinical trial evaluating clinical, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107: 2040–8.

68.

Lundström

, Stenevi

, Thorburn

The Swedish National Cataract Register: a 9-year review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2002; 80: 248–57.