Family involvement in medical decision-making: examining the applicability of the legal framework in Flemish general practice through a vignette survey

Despite increasing attention to the involvement of family members or informal caregivers in patient care, their role remains underdeveloped in medical decision-making (MDM) models implemented in clinical practice. Moreover, family involvement in MDM may conflict with patient rights, particularly the patient’s right to self-determination. This study aimed to assess whether Belgian general practitioners (GPs) endorse legally impermissible strategies for family involvement in MDM, and how this relates to their knowledge of the legal framework, attitudes toward MDM, sociodemographic and professional characteristics. An online vignette survey was distributed among Dutch-speaking GPs in Belgium. The vignettes were designed using a nominal group technique, in which complex real-life cases of family involvement in MDM were discussed with GPs and medical lawyers. The survey assessed GPs’ endorsement of legally impermissible strategies for family involvement in MDM, described in four vignettes, along with their knowledge of the legal permissibility of these strategies. Regression analyses were run to examine the associations between GPs’ endorsement and their legal knowledge, attitudes toward MDM, sociodemographic and professional background variables. The final sample consisted of 290 GPs. Depending on the vignette, 26.9% to 43.8% of respondents endorsed legally impermissible strategies, and 26.2% to 35.9% demonstrated insufficient knowledge of the relevant legal framework. Greater legal knowledge emerged as the strongest protective factor against endorsing legally impermissible strategies. However, 10.3% to 20% of respondents still endorsed such strategies despite having sufficient knowledge. A considerable proportion of GPs endorsed the use of legally impermissible strategies for family involvement in MDM. Considering that some of these respondents had adequate legal knowledge, findings suggest a need to reassess the responsiveness and practical applicability of the legal framework to clinical realities.