Introduction To enhance shared decision-making, patients should receive information regarding all available options, including ‘no treatment’ option when applicable. Many patients consult general practitioners seeking treatment for self-limiting conditions (that typically resolve spontaneously). In these cases, ‘no treatment’ or ‘wait and see’ approach, involving supportive care, is a legitimate option. However, discussing this option is sometimes overlooked during consultations, and little is known about the best way to do so. This study explored individuals’ perceptions and acceptability of a ‘wait and see’ approach, and phrases to describe this, for managing self-limiting illnesses.

Methods Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 30 Australians. Two researchers independently conducted a thematic analysis of interview transcripts, and all authors agreed on final themes.

Results Four themes emerged: Interpretation of what ‘wait and see’ meant varied and encompassed whether individuals had already sought medical care; Individuals’ experiences and circumstances influenced the acceptability of a ‘wait and see’ approach; Symptom management was perceived as the most reassuring phrase to describe this approach; Individuals highly valued clear communication about a ‘wait and see’ approach and wanted a collaborative and action-oriented plan for the waiting period.

Discussion Our findings provide new insights into factors influencing ‘wait and see’ acceptability when applicable, terminology to be used when communicating this option, and what information to include. These findings resonate with previous research indicating difficulties in understanding certain healthcare terms, especially for inadequate health literacy individuals. Strengths encompassed a diverse participant demographic; however, language bias towards English speakers was a limitation.

Conclusion Individuals generally accepted a ‘wait and see’ approach, although less so for some illnesses and in some circumstances. They wanted it at least presented as an option when appropriate, with ‘symptom management’ as the preferred terminology. Clear communication and collaborative decision-making were valued.