The Influence of Patients Relatives on Physicians Treatment Plan : A Cross Sectional Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54361/LJMR.20.3.89Keywords:
Family influence, Clinical-Decision making, Treatment planning, Physicians, Family interference, Cross-sectional studyAbstract
Background: Clinical decision making is influenced by multiple factors beyond medical evidence , including interactions with patients family members. Family involvement can provide valuable support for patient care; however, excessive interference may affect physicians judgment, delay treatment, and create ethical and communication challenges. This study aimed to evaluate the perceived impact of patient’s families on physicians’ treatment planning and clinical decision making Aim :To evaluate the influence of patient relatives on physicians treatment planning and clinical decision-making and to identify factors associated with this influence. Methods: A cross-sectional study questionnaire-based study was conducted among 212 physicians from different medical specialties and experience levels. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participants characteristics and survey responses . internal consistency was assessed using (Cronbach's α = 0.821) . Since the composite impact score was not normally distributed, non-parametric tests(Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H) were used to compare perceptions according to gender and years of professional experience. Result: Physicians strongly agreed that family cooperation enhances treatment success, while family interference was perceived to contribute to treatment delay . Moderate agreement was observed regarding psychological stress and ethical dilemmas associated with family involvement. Significant positive correlations were identified between psychological stress and family threats, treatment plan modifications and urgency adjustments, and family objections and treatment simplification. No statistically significant differences were found in the overall perceived family impact according to gender or years. Conclusion: Patients families play a substantial role in physicians clinical practice, with both supportive and disruptive effects. Although family cooperation positively contributes to treatment success, excessive interference may increase psychological pressure and complicate clinical decision making . These findings highlight the importance of strengthening physician family communication, promoting family education, and establishing clear professional boundaries to optimize patient care while preserving clinical autonomy.
Downloads
References
1. Lin JL, Lipstein EA, Wittenberg E, Tay D, Lundstrom R, Lundstrom GL, Sediqzadah S, Wright DR. Intergenerational decision making: The role of family relationships in medical decision making. MDM Policy Pract. 2021;6(2):23814683211039468. doi:10.1177/23814683211039468.
2. Waddell A, Lennox A, Spassova G, Bragge P. Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in hospitals from policy to practice: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):74. doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01142-y.
3. Tu J, Liao J, Zhang Y, et al. Primary care providers’ perceptions and experiences of family-centered care for older adults with diabetes: a qualitative study. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21:438. doi:10.1186/s12877-021-02380-x.
4. Terp K, Weis J, Lundqvist P. Parents’ views of family-centered care at a pediatric intensive care unit. Front Pediatr. 2021;9:725040. doi:10.3389/fped.2021.725040.
5. Liverpool S, Hayes D, Edbrooke-Childs J, et al. Parent-reported experiences of shared decision making in child and adolescent mental health services. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:676721. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.676721.
6. Liverpool S, Pereira B, Hayes D, et al. An affective-appraisal approach for parental shared decision making in child mental health. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:626848. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.626848.
7. Liu X, Humphris G, Luo A, et al. Family-clinician shared decision making in intensive care units: cluster randomized trial in China. Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105(6):1532-1538. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2021.10.004.
8. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making—the pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780-781. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1109283.
9. Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;359:j4891. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4891.
10. Hayer N, Wassif HS. General dental practitioners’ perceptions of shared decision making: a qualitative study. Br Dent J. 2022;232:227-231. doi:10.1038/s41415-022-3980-9.
11. Clay AM, Parsh B. Patient- and family-centered care: it’s not just for pediatrics anymore. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(1):40-44. doi:10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.1.medu3-1601.
12. Kriston L, Hahlweg P, Härter M, Scholl I. A skills network approach to physicians’ competence in shared decision making. Health Expect. 2020;23(6):1466-1476. doi:10.1111/hex.13130. 12. Kriston L, Hahlweg P, HärterM, Scholl I. A skills network approach to physicians’ competence in shared decision making. Health Expect. 2020;23(6):1466-1476. doi:10.1111/hex.13130.
13. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database SystRev. 2017;(4):CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.
14. Scholl I, LaRussa A, Hahlweg P, Kobrin S, Elwyn G. Organizational- and system-level characteristics that influence implementation of shared decision-making and strategies to address them—a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):40. doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0731-z.
15. Epstein RM, Street RL Jr. The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(2):100-103. doi:10.1370/afm.1239.
16. Beach MC, Sugarman J. Realizing shared decision-making in practice. JAMA. 2019;322(9):811-812. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.9797.
17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Shared decision making. NICE guideline NG197. London: NICE; 2021. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng197
18. World Health Organization. Framework on integrated, people-centred health services. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
19. Barnhoorn-Bos AM, Mulder EA, Nooteboom LA, Meurs EHA, Vermeiren RRJM. Professionals’ and families’ perspectives on essential elements of shared decision-making: a qualitative analysis on families with multiple and enduring problems in integrated youth care. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2025;52(4):640-652. doi:10.1007/s10488-025-01443-0.
20. Davies NL, Cervantes PE, Acri MC, Hoagwood KE. The role of shared decision-making in promoting family participation in treatment for adolescents and young adults with first-episode psychosis. Community Ment Health J. 2025;61(2):365-371. doi:10.1007/s10597-024-01363-7.
21. Sylvestre P, Aronson PL, Yannopoulos A, Poirier C, Gaucher N, Burstein B. Parental preferences and shared decision-making for the management of febrile young infants. Pediatrics. 2024;154(4):e2024066420. doi:10.1542/peds.2024-066420
22. Görig T, Eichinger M, Georg S, et al. Correlates of perceived shared decision making with parents of children with special healthcare needs: findings from the PART-CHILD study. Patient Educ Couns. 2024;124:108252. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2024.108252.
23. Oueslati R, Woudstra AJ, Alkirawan R, Reis R, van Zaalen Y, Slager MT, et al. What value structure underlies shared decision making? A qualitative synthesis of models of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2024;124:108284. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2024.108284.
24. Kunneman M. Shared decision-making to design care that fits for each patient. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2024;10:32. doi:10.1038/s41572-024-00522-0.
25. Tham SS, Solomon P. Family involvement in routine services for individuals with severe mental illness: scoping review of barriers and strategies. Psychiatr Serv. 2024;75(10):1009-1030. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.20230452.
26. Zhao T, Wang N, Peng J, Tian X, Zhang B, Feng Y, et al. The impact of shared decision-making on patient family members’ treatment expectations and satisfaction. Med Philos. 2024;45(10):25-27,44. doi:10.12014/j.issn.1002-0772.2024.10.06.
27. Sawyer KE, Opel DJ. Shared decision-making in pediatrics. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2024;71(1):39-48. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2023.08.001.
28. Henselmans I, Brugel SD, de Haes HCJM, WolvetangKJA, de Vries LM, Pieterse AH, et al. Promoting shared decision making in advanced cancer: development and piloting of a patient communication aid. Patient EducCouns. 2019;102(5):916-923. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.018.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Libyan Journal of Medical Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Open Access Policy
Libyan journal of medical Research (LJMR).is an open journal, therefore there are no fees required for downloading any publication from the journal website by authors, readers, and institution.
The journal applies the license of CC BY (a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license). This license allows authors to keep ownership f the copyright of their papers. But this license permits any user to download , print out, extract, reuse, archive, and distribute the article, so long as appropriate credit is given to the authors and the source of the work.
The license ensures that the article will be available as widely as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific archive.
Editorial Policy
The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model for Libyan journal of medical Research (LJMR). It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editorial, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
Any manuscript or substantial parts of it, submitted to the journal must not be under consideration by any other journal. In general, the manuscript should not have already been published in any journal or other citable form, although it may have been deposited on a preprint server. Authors are required to ensure that no material submitted as part of a manuscript infringes existing copyrights, or the rights of a third party.
Authorship Policy
The manuscript authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution and intellectual input to the research submitted to the journal, including design, performance, interpretation of the reported study, and writing the manuscript. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the manuscript but without intellectual input should only be recognized in the acknowledgements section of the manuscript. Also, one of the authors should be selected as the corresponding author to communicate with the journal and approve the final version of the manuscript for publication in the LJMR.
Peer-review Policy
- All the manuscripts submitted to LJMR will be subjected to the double-blinded peer-review process;
- The manuscript will be reviewed by two suitable experts in the respective subject area.
- Reports of all the reviewers will be considered while deciding on acceptance/revision or rejection of a manuscript.
- Editor-In-Chief will make the final decision, based on the reviewer’s comments.
- Editor-In-Chief can ask one or more advisory board members for their suggestions upon a manuscript, before making the final decision.
- Associate editor and review editors provide administrative support to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.
- In case, authors challenge the editor’s negative decision with suitable arguments, the manuscript can be sent to one more reviewer and the final decision will be made based upon his recommendations.
https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/2413-6069
