BMJ
Home Help Search Archive Feedback Search Result
[Advanced]
Institution: BMJ Journals Sign in to your Personal subscription
BMJ  2003;327:450 (23 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7412.450
This article
Extract
Respond to this article
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me when responses are posted
Alert me when a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Find similar articles in BMJ
Find similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Find similar articles in PubMed
Add article to my folders
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Google Scholar
Articles by Bowling, A. P
Articles by Lambert, N.
Articles citing this Article
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Bowling, A. P
Articles by Lambert, N.
Related content
Related Article

Letter

Patients' preferences need thinking through for the NHS

EDITOR—Kennedy comments that a mature culture will settle on sharing power and responsibility, on a subtle negotiation between professional and patient about what each wants and what each can deliver.1 But how will clinicians and health policy makers react to patients who want the least effective treatment, which may also be less cost effective for the health service in the longer term?

That this scenario could arise is indicated by the results of our pilot survey among patients with angina of their preferred treatment for coronary artery disease. Patients' views on the range of invasive to less invasive treatments were diverse. However, although surgical treatments (such as coronary bypass surgery) were generally perceived as effective, they were also described by respondents in negative terms, such as invasive and frightening, and were to be avoided altogether or delayed until they became unavoidable (until the condition becomes life threatening). This attitude was particularly prevalent in women and in older patients (aged 75 and over).

A larger study, including modelling the results on healthcare costs and outcomes, is required next, but the consequences for the NHS of large numbers of patients opting for treatments other than those that are clinically indicated need thinking through.

Ann P Bowling, professor of health services research

Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University College London (Royal Free), London NW3 2PF a.bowling{at}ucl.ac.uk

Gene Rowe, senior research scientist, Nigel Lambert, acting director

Consumer Sciences Group, Institute of Food Research, Norwich NR4 7UA


The following are coauthors of this letter: Shah Ebrahim, professor of epidemiology of old age, Department of Social Medicine and MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, University of Bristol; Richard Thomson, professor of epidemiology and public health, School of Population and Health Sciences, University of Newcastle on Tyne; and Michael Laurence and Jamie Dalrymple, general practitioners, Norwich.

Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. Kennedy I. Patients are experts in their own field. BMJ 2003;326: 1276-7. (12 June 2003.)[Free Full Text]

Related Article

Patients are experts in their own field
Ian Kennedy
BMJ 2003 326: 1276-1277. [Full Text]




This article
Extract
Respond to this article
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me when responses are posted
Alert me when a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Find similar articles in BMJ
Find similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Find similar articles in PubMed
Add article to my folders
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Google Scholar
Articles by Bowling, A. P
Articles by Lambert, N.
Articles citing this Article
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Bowling, A. P
Articles by Lambert, N.
Related content
Related Article


Home Help Search Archive Feedback Search Result
BMJ BMJ Careers current vacancies
© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd