Dataset Information

Medical communication and technology: a video-based process study of the use of decision aids in primary care consultations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Much of the research on decision-making in health care has focused on consultation outcomes. Less is known about the process by which clinicians and patients come to a treatment decision. This study aimed to quantitatively describe the behaviour shown by doctors and patients during primary care consultations when three types of decision aids were used to promote treatment decision-making in a randomised controlled trial.

Methods

A video-based study set in an efficacy trial which compared the use of paper-based guidelines (control) with two forms of computer-based decision aids (implicit and explicit versions of DARTS II). Treatment decision concerned warfarin anti-coagulation to reduce the risk of stroke in older patients with atrial fibrillation. Twenty nine consultations were video-recorded. A ten-minute 'slice' of the consultation was sampled for detailed content analysis using existing interaction analysis protocols for verbal behaviour and ethological techniques for non-verbal behaviour.

Results

Median consultation times (quartiles) differed significantly depending on the technology used. Paper-based guidelines took 21 (19-26) minutes to work through compared to 31 (16-41) minutes for the implicit tool; and 44 (39-55) minutes for the explicit tool. In the ten minutes immediately preceding the decision point, GPs dominated the conversation, accounting for 64% (58-66%) of all utterances and this trend was similar across all three arms of the trial. Information-giving was the most frequent activity for both GPs and patients, although GPs did this at twice the rate compared to patients and at higher rates in consultations involving computerised decision aids. GPs' language was highly technically focused and just 7% of their conversation was socio-emotional in content; this was half the socio-emotional content shown by patients (15%). However, frequent head nodding and a close mirroring in the direction of eye-gaze suggested that both parties were active participants in the conversation

Conclusion

Irrespective of the arm of the trial, both patients' and GPs' behaviour showed that they were reciprocally engaged in these consultations. However, even in consultations aimed at promoting shared decision-making, GPs' were verbally dominant, and they worked primarily as information providers for patients. In addition, computer-based decision aids significantly prolonged the consultations, particularly the later phases. These data suggest that decision aids may not lead to more 'sharing' in treatment decision-making and that, in their current form, they may take too long to negotiate for use in routine primary care.

SUBMITTER: Kaner E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1781432 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Medical communication and technology: a video-based process study of the use of decision aids in primary care consultations.

Kaner Eileen E Heaven Ben B Rapley Tim T Murtagh Madeleine M Graham Ruth R Thomson Richard R May Carl C

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20070110

<h4>Background</h4>Much of the research on decision-making in health care has focused on consultation outcomes. Less is known about the process by which clinicians and patients come to a treatment decision. This study aimed to quantitatively describe the behaviour shown by doctors and patients during primary care consultations when three types of decision aids were used to promote treatment decision-making in a randomised controlled trial.<h4>Methods</h4>A video-based study set in an efficacy tr ...[more]

PMID: 17214891

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe original version of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) recommended that patient decision aids (PtDAs) should be carefully developed, user-tested and open to scrutiny, with a well-documented and systematically applied development process. We carried out a review to check the relevance and scope of this quality dimension and, if necessary, to update it.MethodsOur review drew on three sources: a) published papers describing PtDAs evaluated in randomised controlled trials and included in the most recent Cochrane Collaboration review; b) linked papers cited in the trial reports that described how the PtDAs had been developed; and c) papers and web reports outlining the development process used by organisations experienced in developing multiple PtDAs. We then developed an extended model of the development process indicating the various steps on which documentation is required, as well as a checklist to assess the frequency with which each of the elements was publicly reported.ResultsKey features common to all patient decision aid (PtDA) development processes include: scoping and design; development of a prototype; 'alpha' testing with patients and clinicians in an iterative process; 'beta' testing in 'real life' conditions (field tests); and production of a final version for use and/or further evaluation. Only about half of the published reports on the development of PtDAs that we reviewed appear to have been field tested with patients, and even fewer had been reviewed or tested by clinicians not involved in the development process. Very few described a distribution strategy, and surprisingly few (17%) described a method for reviewing and synthesizing the clinical evidence. We describe a model development process that includes all the original elements of the original IPDAS criterion, expanded to include consideration of format and distribution plans as well as prototype development.ConclusionsThe case for including each of the elements outlined in our model development process is pragmatic rather than evidence-based. Optimal methods for ensuring that each stage of the process is carried out effectively require further development and testing.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pre-recorded videotapes have become the standard approach when teaching clinical communication skills (CCS). Furthermore, video-based feedback (VF) has proven to be beneficial in formative assessments. However, VF in CCS with the use of pre-recorded videos from real-life settings is less commonly studied than the use of simulated patients. To explore: 1) perceptions about the potential benefits and challenges in this kind of VF; 2) differences in the CCC scores in first-year medical residents in primary care, before and after a communication program using VF in a curricular formative assessment. METHOD:We conducted a pre/post study with a control group. The intervention consisted of VF sessions regarding CCS, performed in a small group with peers and a facilitator. They reviewed clinical consultations pre-recorded in a primary care setting with real patients. Before and after the intervention, 54 medical residents performed two clinical examinations with simulated patients (SP), answered quantitative scales (Perception of Patient-Centeredness and Jefferson Empathy Scale), and semi-structured qualitative questionnaires. The performances were scored by SP (Perception of Patient-Centeredness and CARE scale) and by two blind raters (SPIKES protocol-based and CCOG-based scale). The quantitative data analysis employed repeated-measures ANOVA. The qualitative analysis used the Braun and Clarke framework for thematic analysis. RESULTS:The quantitative analyses did not reveal any significant differences in the sum scores of the questionnaires, except for the Jefferson Empathy Scale. In the qualitative questionnaires, the main potential benefits that emerged from the thematic analysis of the VF method were self-perception, peer-feedback, patient-centered approach, and incorporation of reflective practices. A challenging aspect that emerged from facilitators was the struggle to relate the VF with theoretical references and the resident's initial stress to record and watch oneself on video. CONCLUSION:VF taken from real-life settings seems to be associated with a significant increase in self-perceived empathy. The study of other quantitative outcomes related to this VF intervention needs larger sample sizes. VF with clinical patients from real healthcare settings appears to be an opportunity for a deeper level of self-assessment, peer-feedback, and reflective practices.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Technology has been placed at the centre of global health policy and has been cited as having the potential to increase efficiency and remove geographical boundaries for patients to access care. Communication technology may support patients with orthopaedic problems, which is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. There are several examples of technology being used in clinical research, although uptake in practice remains low. An understanding of patient preferences will support the design of a communication technology supported treatment pathway for patients undergoing orthopaedic rehabilitation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This mixed methods project will be conducted in four phases. In phase I, a systematic review of qualitative studies reporting communication technology use for orthopaedic rehabilitation will be conducted to devise a taxonomy of tasks patients' face when using these technologies to access their care. In phase II, qualitative interviews will investigate how the work of being a patient changes during face-to-face and communication technology consultations and how these changes influence preference. In phase III, a discrete choice experiment will investigate the factors that influence preferences for the use of communication technology for orthopaedic rehabilitation consultations. Phase IV will be a practical application of these results. We will design a 'minimally disruptive' communication technology supported pathway for patients undergoing orthopaedic rehabilitation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The design of a pathway and underpinning patient preference will assist in understanding factors that might influence technology implementation for clinical care. This study requires ethical approval for phases II, III and IV. Approvals have been received for phase II (approval received on 4 December 2016 from the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 255172, REC Reference 18/SC/0663)) and phase III (approval received on 18 October 2019 from the London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 248064, REC Reference 19/LO/1586)) and will be sought for phase IV. All participants will provide informed written consent prior to being enrolled onto the study. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018100896.

Dataset Information

Medical communication and technology: a video-based process study of the use of decision aids in primary care consultations.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Medical communication and technology: a video-based process study of the use of decision aids in primary care consultations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets