SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    McWhinney IR. Primary care: core values. Core values in a changing world. British Medical Journal, 1998; 13: 18071809.
  • 2
    Jones R, Higgs R, De Angelis C, Prideaux D. Changing face of medical curricula. Lancet, 2001; 357: 699703.
  • 3
    Bensing JM. Bridging the gap. The separate worlds of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered medicine. Patient Education and Counseling, 2000; 39: 1725.
  • 4
    Visser A, Wislow L. From patient education to communication health care. Editorial. Patient Education and Counseling, 2003; 5: 227228.
  • 5
    Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A et al. The Option Scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expectations, 2005; 8: 3442.
  • 6
    Charles C, Gafini A, Whelan T. Decision making in the physician–patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Social Science and Medicine, 1999; 49: 651661.
  • 7
    Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, Grol R. Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. British Journal of General Practice, 2001; 51: 6162.
  • 8
    Longo MF, Cohen DR, Hood K et al. Involving patients in primary care consultations: assessing preferences using discrete choice experiments. British Journal of General Practice, 2001; 51: 6162.
  • 9
    Van Lindert H, Groenewegen PP, Van Wijmen FCB. Gezondheidsrecht in maatschappelijk perspectief (Health law in social perspective): naar een empirisch toetsingskader voor de werking van informed consent (WGBO). Recht der Werkelijkheid, 2003; 24: 2136.
  • 10
    Van Dulmen AM, Bensing JM. The Effect of Context in Healthcare. A Programming Study. Utrecht, Netherlands: NIVEL, 2001.
  • 11
    Ploem MC, Van De Evaluatie WGBO. van wet naar praktijk (Evaluation of WGBO: from law to practice). Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidsrecht: Symposiumverslag, 2001; 5: 308316.
  • 12
    Dute JCJ, Friele RD, Gevers JKM et al. Evaluatie Wet op de geneeskundige behandelingsovereenkomst [Evaluation Law of Medical Treatment Agreement]. The Hague: ZON, 2002.
  • 13
    Elwyn G, Edwards A, Mowle S et al. Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments. Patient Education and Counseling, 2001; 43: 522.
  • 14
    Van Weert J, Van Dulmen S, Bär P, Venus E. Interdisciplinary preoperative patient education in cardiac surgery. Review. Patient Education and Counseling, 2003; 49: 105114.
  • 15
    Van Den Brink-Muinen A, Verhaak PFM, Bensing JM et al. Communication in general practice: differences between European countries. Family Practice, 2003; 20: 478485.
  • 16
    Belcher VN, Fried TR, Agostini JV, Tinetti ME. Views of older adults on patient participation in medication-related decision making. Journal of Internal Medicine, 2006; 21: 298303. [Epub ahead of print].
  • 17
    McKinstry B. Do patients wish to be involved in decision making in the consultation? A cross sectional survey with video vignettes. British Medical Journal, 2000; 321: 867871.
  • 18
    Westert GP, Schellevis FG, De Bakker DH, Groenewegen PP, Bensing JM, Van Der Zee J. Monitoring health inequalities through general practice: the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice. European Journal of Public Health, 2005; 15: 5965.
  • 19
    Bensing JM, Foets M, Van Der Velden J, Van Der Zee J. De Nationale Studie naar ziekten en verrichtingen in de huisartspraktijk. Achtergronden en methoden (Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice. Background and methods). Huisarts en Wetenschap, 1991; 34: 5161.
  • 20
    Van Den Brink-Muinen A, Van Dulmen AM, Schellevis FG, Bensing JM (eds). Tweede Nationale Studie naar ziekten en verrichtingen in de huisartspraktijk. Oog voor communicatie: huisarts-patiënt communicatie in Nederland (Focus on Communication: Doctor–Patient Communication in the Netherlands]. Utrecht: NIVEL, 2004.
  • 21
    Van Der Pasch MAA, Verhaak PFM. Communication in general practice: recognition and treatment of mental illness. Patient Education and Counseling, 1998; 33: 97112.
  • 22
    Lamberts H, Wood M (eds). International Classification of Primary Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
  • 23
    Van Den Brink-Muinen A, Verhaak PFM, Bensing JM et al. Doctor–patient communication in different European health care systems: relevance and performance from the patients’ perspective. Patient Education and Counseling, 2000, 39: 115127.
  • 24
    Sixma HJ, Kerssens JJ, Van Campen C, Peters L. Quality of care from the patients’ perspective: from theoretical concept to a new measurement instrument. Health Expectations, 1998; 1: 8295.
  • 25
    Roter DL. The Roter Method of Interaction Process Analysis. The Johns Hopkins University: Baltimore, MD, 2001.
  • 26
    Roter DL, Larson S. The Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions. Patient Education and Counseling, 2002; 46: 243251.
  • 27
    Noldus LP, Trienes RJ, Hendriksen AH, Jansen H, Jansen RG. The Observer-Video-Pro: new software for the collection, management and presentation of time-structured data from videotapes and digital media films. Behavorial Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 2000; 32: 197206.
  • 28
    Blalock HM. Social Statistics. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill, 1979.
  • 29
    Leyland AH, Groenewegen PP. Multilevel modelling and public health policy. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 2003; 31: 267274.
  • 30
    De Haes H, Koedoot N. Patient centered decision making in palliative cancer treatment: a world of paradoxes. Patient Education and Counseling, 2003; 50: 4349.
  • 31
    Rowbotham D. Informed consent (and a flatter in Vegas). British Medical Journal, 2005; 331: 973.
  • 32
    Wood CPJ, Blackburn SC. Informed consent. Is frightening patients really in their best interests? British Medical Journal, 2005; 331: 1082.
  • 33
    Krupat E, Bell R, Kravitz RL, Thom D, Azari R. When physicians and patients think alike: patient-centered beliefs and their impact on satisfaction and trust. Family Practice, 2001; 50: 10571062.
  • 34
    Robinson A, Thomson R. Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools. Quality in Health Care, 2001; 10: i34i38.
  • 35
    Schneider A, Korner T, Mehring M, Wensing M, Elwyn G, Szecsenyi J. Impact of age, health locus of control and psychological co-morbidity on patients’ preferences for shared decision making in general practice. Patient Education and Counseling, 2005; 61: 292298.
  • 36
    Davies J. Doctors should be allowed to offer patients a simplidief form of consent. British Medical Journal, 2005; 331: 925.
  • 37
    Witmer JM, De Roode RP (eds). Van wet naar praktÿk. Implementatie van de WGBO (From Law to Practice. Implementation of the Medical Treatment Act). Utrecht: KNMG, 2004.
  • 38
    Elwyn G, Edwards A, Hood K et al. Study Steering Group. Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Family Practice, 2004; 21: 337346.
  • 39
    Edwards A, Elwyn G. Involving patients in decision making and communicating risk: a longitudinal evaluation of doctors’ attitudes and confidence during a randomized trial. British Journal of General Practice, 2005; 55: 613.
  • 40
    Davis RE, Dolan G, Thomas S et al. Exploring doctor and patient views about risk communication and shared decision-making in the consultation. Health Expectations, 2003; 6: 198207.
  • 41
    Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. Journal of Health Services Resources Policy, 1997; 2: 112121.
  • 42
    Singleton PD. Informed consent. Talking with patients, not at them. British Medical Journal, 2005; 331: 1082.