Medical student attitudes to patient involvement in healthcare

Introduction

Patient and public involvement are terms used to collectively describe engagement with, and inclusion of, patients and the public in the clinical and/or research context. Such terminology reflects growing recognition of the need for inclusive models of healthcare which view patients as active participants in, rather than passive recipients of, healthcare (NIHR, 2022; O’Neill, 2021).

This evolution towards greater involvement has, however, been inconsistent across the healthcare landscape with greater strides made towards facilitating patient involvement in treatment decision-making than research. It was in the United Kingdom (UK) Supreme Court (SC) ruling of Montgomery v Lanarkshire [2014] UK SC 11 that Lady Hale clarified patients are no longer to be viewed as “…passive recipients of the care of the medical profession…” (Montgomery, at 75). Accordingly, there have been noticeable moves to adopt models of ‘shared’ and ‘supported’ decision making in relation to treatment (GMC, 2020; Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2018).

In terms of research, patient inclusion has developed at a far slower pace. Whilst the Nuremberg Code of 1947 emphasized that “[persons involved in research] should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision” (Germany, 1949: s.1) it has been slow to translate into practice. This is perhaps reflective of an overarching emphasis upon paternalistic notions of beneficence in research, which views the researcher in a position of authority (Sacristán et al., 2016). More recently, the importance of patient involvement in both the clinical and research settings was re-emphasized in Baroness Cumberlege’s report on findings of the Independent Medicines and Medical Device Safety Review (IMMDSR) of 2020, ‘First Do No Harm’. The report is a cautionary tale against silencing the patient voice - both in the research and clinical settings - in favor of unfettered research innovation (Cumberlege, 2020, see pp17-21; 22-25;50 at s2.107). Accordingly, it may be argued that greater patient involvement in treatment and research could mitigate against patient harm and the erosion of trust in medical science and promote improved healthcare outcomes (Bombard et al., 2018; World Health Organization, 2019).

To contribute to the existing scholarship, we sought to develop greater appreciation of the attitudes of incoming members of the medical profession towards patient involvement by surveying a new Year 1 cohort of medical students. Our aim was to determine what pre-conceived attitudes these students held towards patient involvement in healthcare.

To ensure that we communicated with our student target group appropriately, we partnered with four existing Year 2 medical (MBChB) students from the design phase of the study. The student partners had each recently completed a Student Selected Component (SSC) on ‘Patient Perspectives in Research’. SSCs are short modules, chosen by students, which allow them to study an area of interest in more depth – a requirement of the General Medical Council (GMC) (General Medical Council, 2009, s94). We adopted a staff-student partnership model reflective of the ‘student as apprentice’ dynamic described in Olsen’s ‘Student Partnership Framework’ to facilitate the shared pursuit of knowledge and, to support development of our student partners’ research skills (Holen et al., 2020; Olsen, 2007 at 30l2020).

Study design

Author Kirsty McIntyre ran a five-week SSC module on ‘Patient Perspectives in Research’ from January 2022, which four students completed (co-authors BDS, AN, YR, LY). Separate to this, informal discussions between JO and KM led to the development of a study idea to investigate student opinions of patient involvement. KM approached the four Year 2 students who had completed the SSC module on 4^th February 2022 to ask whether they would be willing to co-develop the study aims and research survey.

All authors met on 9^th February 2022 to discuss the scope of the project and to outline expected commitments. We next held a focus group on 21^st February 2022, attended by all four students. Here, JO and KMdiscussed the background to the study, proposed study aims, and offered potential survey questions for students to evaluate. Students were then informed of the key research process milestones that they could contribute to; namely ‘defining the research question’, ‘developing research design’, ‘data collection’ and ‘dissemination’.

The student partners were given time to discuss the project amongst themselves and were provided whiteboard pens, post-it notes and paper to record their thoughts and amendments. During the focus group, students suggested contextualizing some statements in the survey (for example “doctors should work in partnership with patients”) with a scenario.

Subsequently, JO developed three scenarios to directly reflect current legal precedent and relevant regulatory issues pertaining to patient involvement in healthcare (Table 2). The student partners advised on and edited the wording of the scenarios.

An iterative feedback loop was established thereafter, whereby staff (KM, JO) shared the current versions of the survey and subsequently enacted the suggested changes of the student partners until all authors were happy with the finalized survey (Supplementary File 1). At all stages of the research process, students were offered the opportunity to withdraw their contributions to the study and were reminded that there would be no repercussions should they choose to do so.

Ethical approval

Approval for this study was obtained from the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences (MVLS) Ethics Committee for Non-clinical Research Involving Human Participants [No: 200210131] with staff and student partners included as named researchers. The ensuing collection, storage and processing of all personal data was in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018.

Survey Dissemination

The survey was built and disseminated via Qualtrics (Qualtrics LLC 2022) using an institutional license. Incoming Year 1 medical students were invited to participate on 2^nd September 2022 via an announcement posted on their virtual learning environment, Moodle. The release of the survey in this manner, prior to the start of the academic year (20^th September 2022), was possible on account of our well-established pre-entry online course for incoming Year 1 MBChB students (n = 333). The survey closed on 22^nd September 2022, prior to students’ first scheduled lecture on the topic of ethics.

Patient Involvement in Medical Decision-Making

There was almost unanimous agreement amongst our students that doctors should involve patients in ‘management decisions’ (18.4% agreed; 81.6% strongly agreed). ‘Medical management’ is an umbrella term which may relate to ‘micro’ (patient-practitioner) or ‘meso’ (organizational) level healthcare. Whilst there was general support for patient involvement in micro-level healthcare (93.9% of students supported patient involvement in choosing from a range of treatment options), there was less support for the concept of patient involvement in “medical decision-making about treatment” which could encapsulate broader meso-level healthcare (61.2%) (See Table 3). Upon examination, these results may indicate the respondents hold a more nuanced appreciation of the current legal standard than may have been anticipated.

Our respondents’ recognition of the importance of representing the patient voice in healthcare (91.8% strong agreement) demonstrates respect for the principle of medical autonomy. Autonomy – which encapsulates the patient’s right to self-determination – is upheld through the meaningful dialogues and collaboration that models of “shared” and “supported” decision-making in micro-level healthcare facilitate (General Medical Council, 2020; Royal College of Surgeons, 2018). A key aspect of such inclusive decision-making is patient involvement, whereby the patient – viewed as an active stakeholder in their own healthcare – is endowed with the information necessary for informed medical decision-making (O’Neill, 2021). The current legal standard – established in the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] – outlines the duty placed upon doctors to inform patients of the benefits, material risks and reasonable treatment alternatives available to them (Montgomery v Lanarkshire [2015] at 81). The case marked a dramatic landmark departure from the preceding legal precedent set by the 1957 case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. The paternalistic nature of the Bolam ruling set the medical profession firmly in control of what information patients would, and would not, receive as a matter of professional judgement (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]). It is to this end that the case has long been criticized for reducing the patient’s role to that of infant, against the parental doctor (Cave & Milo 2020; Watt, 2018). Yet whilst Montgomery reframed the requirements of information disclosure regarding treatment, subsequent cases have established that its remit does not extend to the matter of initial treatment selection which remains a matter of professional judgement according to Bolam (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]; Duce v Worcestershire NHS Acute Hospitals Trust [2018]; Montgomery v Lanarkshire [2015]). It is at this stage that the interpretation of “medical decision-making about treatment” becomes important. Whilst fewer respondents agreed that patients should be involved in “medical decision-making about treatment”, it may be possible that they interpreted this statement – reflecting the doctor’s initial decision to propose a suitable treatment – according to their professional judgement. In which case, the opine of the 38.8% of respondents opposed to such patient involvement would correctly reflect current legal norms. Indeed, the courts have long-established that patients cannot actively demand a particular form of treatment before it is first offered to them by the healthcare professional (See Lord Philips MR in Burke v GMC [2015]). To this end, patients are only partially involved in the concept of micro-level medical management to the extent that they are fully informed when consenting to treatment.

Patients are also not routinely included in meso-level (organizational) medical management decision-making, although it is not completely unprecedented. Choy and colleagues described their 2007 pilot study that concerned the involvement of breast cancer patients in the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting. The MDT typically excludes patients and instead involves a team of specialist healthcare practitioners who seek consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of complex medical cases. Choy et al., (2007) nonetheless, described their successful pilot as being “highly valued by most of the participating patients and … welcomed by most health professionals in the [MDT]” without creating undue patient anxiety. Such meso-level patient involvement, however, remains contrary to current norms within the wider profession. It is therefore unlikely that our incoming student cohort interpreted medical management as relating to organizational, meso-level healthcare and we can conclude to a degree of certainty that their support for ‘management’ relates to micro-level informed consent.

Overall, we may conclude that our incoming medical students demonstrated an awareness of the current requirements to involve patients in medical decision-making with most students against doctors having the final say in decision-making and against patients being viewed as passive recipients of care (See Figure 1). Furthermore, engagement with the scenarios confirms awareness of the basic principles of consent as per Montgomery with unanimous support (100%) of patients being fully informed (Table 2). There were, however, a small proportion of students (6.4%) who erroneously supported the undertaking of additional surgical procedures beyond the scope of initial consent – an action the US courts rejected in Schoendorff and which would likely fail the Bolam test of professional judgement (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]; Schonendorff v Society of New York [1914]). It is, therefore, important that incoming members of the profession are made aware of the dynamic and ongoing nature of consent.

Patient Involvement in Research

Our data show less support regarding general patient involvement in medical research. There was least support amongst incoming medical students for patient involvement in conducting (22.4%), contributing to (34.7%) or communicating (30.6%) research. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) defines patient involvement in research as “research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them” (NIHR Involve, n.d.). This reflects a model of shared decision-making whereby the epistemic value of the patient is recognized at the research and development stage of product development (O’Neill, 2021). However, our findings are also reflective of a systematic review by Biddle et al., (2020) which found growing support for the concept of patient involvement in healthcare but “to a lesser extent, in health research”. Biddle and colleagues describe the UK as a leading contributor to patient involvement research compared to several other European countries (Biddle et al., 2020). They note that whilst “general attitude towards … [patient involvement…] is changing” to reflect more acceptance, it is often in a “marginal or tokenistic” sense (Biddle et al., 2020). Similarly, a study by Boaz et al., (2016) suggests that researchers demonstrate “active resistance” to sharing control of the research process with patients and so patients are constrained to “tinkering at the edges”. Such attitudes appear to be reflected in our incoming medical student cohort. Whilst demonstrating less support for patient involvement in the aforementioned stages of research, respondents unanimously support (100%) retrospective or observational research input derived from patients’ lived experience of medical devices or treatments to “shape future practice” (Scenario 3). Such input, however, reflects research carried out to rather than by patients. It is possible that the respondents’ support of this form of patient involvement derives from increased awareness of pharmacovigilance and the Yellow Card reporting schemes that have come into the public consciousness due to the rapid COVID-19 vaccine rollout (Maxwell, 2022). Whilst observational research is important – indeed, Baroness Cumberlege described how use of harmful polypropylene mesh was prolonged due to “patient reports of harm … not [being] listened to or… dismissed as subjective, unscientific, and anecdotal” (Cumberlege, 2020 at p63, s2.127) – it is vital to address why attitudes towards patient involvement in earlier stages of the research process remain less agreeable. These combined findings indicate that there may be a need to improve student awareness of the role, and benefits, of patient involvement in research.

Strengths and Weaknesses

One of the weaknesses of our study lies in the relatively high non-response rate (85.3%) from the Year 1 cohort. Porter and Whitcomb (2005) suggest that the decision not to participate in a survey is multi-factorial and that developing an appreciation of these factors can assist in interpreting the quality of data. We look to both general and specific factors that may account for our high non-response rate. Generally, factors such as a lack of incentives to complete the survey and the timing of survey distribution (in week 0, when students faced burdens associated with transitioning into medical school) are likely to have been contributory. A strength of our study derives from our inclusion of questions on demographics which enable us to draw hypotheses on the specific factors associated with response decisions. Most of our study respondents were under the age of 21 (91.0%) and ‘school leavers’ (73.5%) which is broadly reflective of our Year 1 medical student demographic. There was, however, a notably higher response rate from female medical students (81.6%) than their male counterparts (18.6%). This is, perhaps, not surprising given that in the 2021/22 year, the GMC reported that 64.0% of medical student entrants were women (GMC, 2022). Furthermore, generic studies have shown female students to be far more likely to engage in surveys than males within the general student population (Porter & Whitcomb, 2005). However, it is pertinent to consider the influences that may affect engagement within this specific cohort of professional students. There is a body of evidence to suggest that female medical students and doctors are more likely to show an interest in themes of patient involvement than males. In practice, female medics are more likely to actively promote shared decision-making by explaining advantages and disadvantages of treatment options, by helping patients understand information and by enquiring about patient preferences (Alameddine et al., 2022). Female doctors are also shown to spend more time engaging with “collaborative models of the patient-physician relationship” than male colleagues (Roter & Hall, 2009). Araújo and colleagues (2017) suggest that greater collaborative tendencies amongst female medics may derive from them placing greater emphasis upon egalitarian values that align with shared decision-making and overall patient involvement than males. As such, our findings could be reflective of this established gender disparity within the medical community. Scholars have suggested that such gender disparity could also derive from the lived experience of female medics as patients themselves. Ommen et al., (2011) describe a significantly negative correlation between patient female gender and shared decision making with female patients significantly less likely to feel “integrated” into treatment decision-making processes than males. Our findings would support this reasoning as fewer female respondents (60.5%) felt that their opinion had been valued in their personal experience compared to male respondents (75.0%) with one of our respondents specifically commenting that “…doctors need to take women’s [sic] opinions much more seriously”. If we, therefore, conclude that interest in patient involvement positively correlates with survey engagement, we may conversely assume that some non-respondents may have found the subject matter to be “boring” or to lack relevance (Porter & Whitcomb, 2005). Such information may have utility for medical curriculum development by demonstrating the importance of engaging students on the issue of patient involvement. However, further empirical studies would need to be completed before any firm conclusions could be drawn.

A further consideration in interpreting our results – and a further potential weakness – is that of social desirability bias (SDB). Defined by Zerbe and Paulhus (1987) as “the tendency of individuals to present themselves favourably with respect to current social norms and standards”, we recognize that our respondents — as incoming medical students — were likely to respond in a manner they perceived as being ‘expected of them’. Whilst we timed the survey distribution to precede the Year 1 ethics teaching, it is pertinent to note that this incoming cohort had successfully completed rounds of medical school applications and interviews and so, were likely to have a pre-existing level of awareness of such issues that could shape their survey responses. We sought to address this by examining the dimensions of those attitudes through our survey design by including questions with wording reversals, negations, and opposites. Whilst the inclusion of such survey questions holds the potential for mis-response deriving from misinterpretation (see Baumgartner et al., 2018), we determined that, on balance, such question-types held utility in examining the depth of respondents’ beliefs and attitudes related to patient involvement. Furthermore, a strength of our study lies in our collaboration with our student partners who assisted in the wording of the questions to ensure our survey demographic could comprehend the statements. We are therefore confident that whilst SDB is likely to be an inevitable influencing factor within this demographic, our responses remain valid and of value.

Another limitation of our study is that it only addresses the attitudes of incoming medical students and does not address how attitudes amongst medical students may evolve throughout their medical school studies. For example, there is evidence to suggest that empathy – “one of the most highly desirable professional traits” and “crucial for [establishing the] successful physician-patient” relationship that underpins meaningful patient involvement – erodes over time (Newton et al., 2008). Since empathy is linked to shared decision-making, it is likely that attitudes towards patient involvement could erode in a similar way, over time.

Indeed, there is further evidence to suggest that medical student attitudes can be shaped by their experiences in the clinical environment and from exposure to the negative attitudes of practicing clinicians (Pohontsch et al., 2018). This suggests that further study is required to determine whether there is a negative correlation between attitudes towards patient involvement over time which would be of utility in determining whether ongoing education or training is required.