Physicians should take into account that communicating in warm, empathic way combined with raising positive expectations seems to lead to the most favorable effects on patients' state anxiety and outcome expectancies.

Bij shared decision making (SDM) par-ticiperen patiënt en arts beiden in het besluitvormingsproces om gezamen-lijk tot een behandeling te komen. Uit Utrechts onderzoek blijkt dat SDM-training effect heeft op de intakefase. Bij het nemen van het behandelings

BackgroundAlthough the recovery of patients suffering from low back pain is highly context dependent, patient preferences about treatment options are seldom incorporated into the therapeutic plan. Shared decision-making (SDM) offers a tool to overcome this deficiency. The reinforcement by the general practitioner (GP) of a ‘shared’ chosen therapy might increase patients’ expectations of favourable outcomes and thus contribute to recovery.MethodsIn the Netherlands, a clustered randomised controlled trial was performed to assess the effectiveness of shared decision-making followed by positive reinforcement of the chosen therapy (SDM&PR) on patient-related clinical outcomes. Overall, 68 GPs included 226 patients visiting their GP for a new episode of non-chronic low back pain. GPs in the intervention group were trained in implementing SDM&PR using a structured training programme with a focus on patient preferences in reaching treatment decisions. GPs in the control group provided care as usual. The primary outcome was the change in physical disability measured with the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMD) during the six-month follow-up after the first consultation. Physical disability (RMD), pain, adequate relief, absenteeism and healthcare consumption at 2, 6, 12 and 26 weeks were secondary outcomes. A multivariate analysis with a mixed model was used to estimate the differences in outcomes.ResultsOf the patients in the intervention and the control groups, 66 and 62%, respectively, completed the follow-up. Most patients (77%) recovered to no functional restrictions due to back pain within 26 weeks. No significant differences in the mean scores for any outcome were observed between intervention patients and controls during the follow-up, and in multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in the main outcome during the six-month follow-up. Patients in the intervention group reported more involvement in decision-making.ConclusionThis study did not detect any improvement in clinical outcome or in health care consumption of patients with non-chronic low back pain after the training of GPs in SDM&PR. The implementation of SDM merely introduces task-oriented communication. The training of the GPs may have been more effective if it had focused more on patient-oriented communication techniques and on stressing the expectation of favourable outcomes.Trial registrationThe Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) number: NTR1960. The trial was registered in the NTR on August 20, 2009.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0776-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background.In primary care, many consultations address symptom-based complaints. Recovery from these complaints seldom exceeds placebo effects. Patient participation, because of its supposed effects on trust and patient expectancies, is assumed to benefit patients’ recovery. While the idea is theoretically promising, it is still unclear what the effects of increased patient participation are on patient outcomes.Aim.To review the effects of controlled intervention studies aiming to improve patient participation in face-to-face primary care consultations on patient-oriented and/or disease-oriented outcomes.Methods.This study is a systematic review. A systematic search was undertaken for randomized controlled trials designed to measure the effects of interventions that aimed to improve adult patients’ participation in primary care visits. The CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PsycINFO and PubMed databases were searched.Results.Seven different trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three of the studies were related to symptom-based complaints. Five studies measured patient-oriented outcomes, the primary outcome of interest for this review. All studies suffered from substantial bias. Studies varied widely in their aims, types of complaints/diseases, strength of the interventions and their outcomes. The effects on patient-oriented outcomes and disease-oriented outcomes were ambiguous.Conclusion.Little research has been performed on health outcomes of interventions aiming to increase patient participation in general practice visits among patients suffering from symptom-based complaints. The results still are non-conclusive. The quality of the trials has been weak, possibly due to the complexity of the concept. This weak quality may explain the lack of conclusive results. Proposals for future research designs are offered.

Background Although shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly accepted in healthcare and has demonstrated merits for several psychological outcomes, the effect on recovery from somatic conditions is still subject to debate. The objective of this study is to measure the effect of SDM on recovery from non-chronic aspecific low back pain (LBP). Methods This study is a post-hoc analysis of data from a cluster-randomised trial that evaluated the effectiveness of SDM on recovery in patients with non-chronic aspecific LBP. In this analysis, we re-evaluate the impact of SDM from three perspectives: that of external observers, participating GPs and participating patients. Recovery was measured with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and with the Roland Morris Disability questionnaire (RMD) and defined as a VAS < 30 and an RMD < 4. Logistic regression was used to analyse the effect of SDM on recovery at 6 and 26 weeks. Results At 26 weeks, 105 (74%) of all 176 included patients had recovered. No significant effect of SDM on recovery at 6 or 26 weeks after the consultation was found when considering SDM from an observer perspective or a patient perspective. From a GP perspective SDM had a significant effect on recovery, but at 26 weeks only, and with the lowest probability of recovery observed at a medium level of GP-perceived SDM. Conclusions We found no evidence that SDM as perceived by the patient or by external observation improves recovery from non-chronic aspecific low back pain. The long-term recovery may be better for patients in whom the GP perceives SDM during their consultations. Further research should highlight the hierarchy and the relation between the perspectives, which is needed to come to an integral effect evaluation of SDM. Trial registration The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) number: NTR1960.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract