Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
LetterLetters

Equipoise is preference sensitive

Juan V.A. Franco, Paula Riganti, María V. Ruiz Yanzi and Karin Kopitowski
Canadian Family Physician August 2020, 66 (8) 551-552;
Juan V.A. Franco
Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paula Riganti
Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
María V. Ruiz Yanzi
Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karin Kopitowski
Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We generally agree with issues raised by Thériault et al1 in their article in the May issue of Canadian Family Physician in terms of the importance of thinking about when shared decision making (SDM) is of greatest value. As a matter of fact, the first step of SDM involves talking about the decision to be made.2 However, we disagree with the concept that equipoise is a prerequisite to establishing an SDM conversation, or at least as how equipoise was defined in this article for the following reasons.

First, clinicians might consider that a strong recommendation or grade A recommendation (this might vary, as there are many systems for grading recommendations) to do something (eg, starting a medication) might impede an SDM conversation, as there is no equipoise. Nevertheless, methods for incorporating patient preferences in recommendations were recently developed3 and they are not widely implemented. Considering that patients might value outcomes differently, the net balance of interventions is highly preference sensitive.4 And even if a strong recommendation includes the preferences of the general population, what happens if the preferences of our individual patients diverge from these?

Second, we understand that SDM might be inadequate when there is a strong suggestion that harms outweigh the benefits, which is highlighted in the article example of the use of antibiotics for an upper respiratory tract infection in which benefits are negligible and harms (including antibiotic resistance) are important. Even so, there is evidence that interventions that enhance SDM might reduce the inadequate use of antibiotics.5 In these scenarios, could it be that eliciting preferences in the SDM conversation helps make a better decision?

Third, SDM intends to share the best evidence with the patient, including evidence about the consequences of doing nothing.6 That option will always be valid if we respect the autonomy of well-informed patients and their right to refuse practices.7 This is why we believe that more often than not there are at least 2 options (doing or not doing something) where SDM could be a suitable approach for involving patients in decisions.

Finally, the statement “some patients want a test or treatment where the recommendation is strongly against it or will refuse an intervention where the benefits clearly seem to outweigh the harms”1 neglects the idea that well-informed patients might refuse an intervention because they make a different judgment about the net benefit than the judgment made by their physician or a clinical practice guideline. The example of the consideration of colon cancer screening in elderly but fit individuals paradoxically considers that patient preferences can reverse a recommendation against a potentially harmful practice. Why could this not happen conversely (ie, a 50-year-old healthy individual who does not want to undergo screening)?

This does not imply that practices that offer net harm should be validated, but considering the long tradition of paternalistic communication models in medical practice and the slow and scant uptake of SDM, we believe that SDM should be the rule, not the exception, especially considering the balance of benefits and harms. Shared decision making aims to combine the best medical evidence with patients’ values and preferences. Deciding whether to use SDM only based on a biomedical component, such as the level of guideline recommendations, seems an incomplete approach to patient-centred care.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Thériault G,
    2. Grad R,
    3. Dickinson JA,
    4. Breault P,
    5. Singh H,
    6. Bell NR,
    7. et al
    . To share or not to share. When is shared decision making the best option? Can Fam Physician 2020;66:327-31. (Eng), e149–54 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Elwyn G,
    2. Durand MA,
    3. Song J,
    4. Aarts J,
    5. Barr PJ,
    6. Berger Z,
    7. et al
    . A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ 2017;359:j4891.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Zhang Y,
    2. Coello PA,
    3. Brożek J,
    4. Wiercioch W,
    5. Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I,
    6. Akl EA,
    7. et al
    . Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2017;15(1):52.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Alper BS,
    2. Oettgen P,
    3. Kunnamo I,
    4. Iorio A,
    5. Ansari MT,
    6. Murad MH,
    7. et al
    . Defining certainty of net benefit: a GRADE concept paper. BMJ Open 2019;9(6):e027445.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Coxeter P,
    2. Del Mar CB,
    3. McGregor L,
    4. Beller EM,
    5. Hoffmann TC
    . Interventions to facilitate shared decision making to address antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(11):CD010907.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Légaré F,
    2. Shemilt M,
    3. Stacey D
    . Can shared decision making increase the uptake of evidence in clinical practice? Frontline Gastroenterol 2011;2(3):176-81. Epub 2011 Apr 21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Health Care Consent Act. 1996. S.O. 1996, c. 2, Sched A.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 66 (8)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 66, Issue 8
1 Aug 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Equipoise is preference sensitive
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Equipoise is preference sensitive
Juan V.A. Franco, Paula Riganti, María V. Ruiz Yanzi, Karin Kopitowski
Canadian Family Physician Aug 2020, 66 (8) 551-552;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Equipoise is preference sensitive
Juan V.A. Franco, Paula Riganti, María V. Ruiz Yanzi, Karin Kopitowski
Canadian Family Physician Aug 2020, 66 (8) 551-552;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Power of words and expectation
  • More tools against misinformation
  • Methadone is methadone
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2021 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire