Which patients do I treat? An experimental study with economists and physicians.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ahlert M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3402930 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundImplementation research infrequently addresses economic factors, despite the importance of understanding the costs of implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). Though partnerships with health economists have the potential to increase attention to economic factors within implementation science, barriers to forming these collaborations have been noted. This study investigated the experiences of health economists and implementation researchers who have partnered across disciplines to inform strategies to increase such collaborations.MethodsA purposeful sampling approach was used to identify eight health economists and eight implementation researchers with experience participating in cross-disciplinary research. We used semi-structured interviews to gather information about participants' experiences with collaborative research. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core themes related to facilitators and barriers to collaborations.ResultsHealth economists and implementation researchers voiced different perspectives on collaborative research, highlighting the importance of increasing cross-disciplinary understanding. Implementation researchers described a need to measure costs in implementation studies, whereas many health economists described that they seek to collaborate on projects that extend beyond conducting cost analyses. Researchers in both disciplines articulated motivations for collaborative research and identified strategies that promote successful collaboration, with varying degrees of convergence across these themes. Shared motivations included improving methodological rigor of research and making a real-world impact. Strategies to improve collaboration included starting partnerships early in the study design period, having a shared interest, and including health economists in the larger scope of the research.ConclusionsHealth economists and implementation researchers both conduct research with significant policy implications and have the potential to inform one another's work in ways that might more rapidly advance the uptake of EBPs. Collaborative research between health economists and implementation science has the potential to advance the field; however, researchers will need to work to bridge disciplinary differences. By beginning to develop strong working relationships; increasing their understanding of one another's disciplinary culture, methodology, and language; and increasing the role economists have within research design and execution, both implementation researchers and health economists can support successful collaborations and robust and informative research.
| S-EPMC7523377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We investigated what factors may foster or hinder physicians' cancer screening risk literacy-specifically the ability to understand evidence regarding screening effectiveness and make evidence-based recommendations to patients. In an experiment, physicians in training (interns and residents) read statistical information about outcomes from screening for cancer, and had to decide whether to recommend it to a patient. We manipulated the effectiveness of the screening (effective vs. ineffective at reducing mortality) and the demand of the patient to get screened (demand vs. no demand). We assessed participants' comprehension of the presented evidence and recommendation to the patient, as well as a-priori screening beliefs (e.g., that screening is always a good choice), numeracy, science literacy, knowledge of screening statistics, statistical education, and demographics. Stronger positive a-priori screening beliefs, lower knowledge of screening statistics, and lower numeracy were related to worse comprehension of the evidence. Physicians recommended against the ineffective screening but only if they showed good comprehension of the evidence. Physicians' recommendations were further based on the perceived benefits from screening but not on perceived harms, nor the patient's demands. The current study demonstrates that comprehension of cancer screening statistics and the ability to infer the potential benefits for patients are essential for evidence-based recommendations. However, strong beliefs in favor of screening fostered by promotion campaigns may influence how physicians evaluate evidence about specific screenings. Fostering physician numeracy skills could help counteract such biases and provide evidence-based recommendations to patients.
| S-EPMC6608976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Non-cardiac chest pain is common and there is no formal recommendation on what diagnostic tests to use to identify underlying diseases after an acute coronary syndrome has been ruled out. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the diagnostic tests, treatment recommendations and initiated treatments in patients presenting with non-cardiac chest pain to the emergency department (ED). METHODS:Single-center, retrospective medical chart review of patients presenting to the ED. Included were all medical records of patients aged 18 years and older presenting to the ED with chest pain and a non-cardiac discharge diagnosis between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011. Information on the diagnosis, diagnostic tests performed, treatment initiated and recommendation for further diagnostic testing or treatment were extracted. The primary outcomes of interest were the final diagnosis, diagnostic tests, and treatment recommendations. A formal ACS rule out testing was defined as serial three troponin testing. RESULTS:In total, 1341 ED admissions for non-cardiac chest pain (4.2% of all ED admissions) were analyzed. Non-specific chest pain remained the discharge diagnosis in 44.7% (n = 599). Identified underlying diseases included musculoskeletal chest pain (n = 602, 44.9%), pulmonary (n = 30, 2.2%), GI-tract (n = 35, 2.6%), or psychiatric diseases (n = 75, 5.6%). In 81.4% at least one troponin test and in 89% one ECG were performed. A formal ACS rule out troponin testing was performed in 9.2% (GI-tract disease 14.3%, non-specific chest pain 14.0%, pulmonary disease 10.0%, musculoskeletal chest pain 4.7%, and psychiatric disease 4.0%). Most frequently analgesics were prescribed (51%). A diagnostic test with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was prescribed in 20% (mainly in gastrointestinal diseases). At discharge, over 72 different recommendations were given, ranging from no further measures to extensive cardiac evaluation. CONCLUSION:In this retrospective study, a formal work-up to rule out ACS was found in a minority of patients presenting to the ED with chest pain of non-cardiac origin. A wide variation in diagnostic processes and treatment recommendations reflect the uncertainty of clinicians on how to approach patients after a cardiac cause was considered unlikely. Panic and anxiety disorders were rarely considered and a useful PPI treatment trial to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease was infrequently recommended.
| S-EPMC6358153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the public has often expressed great appreciation toward medical personnel who were often shown in the media expressing strong emotions about the situation. To examine whether the perception of people on a physician is in fact influenced by whether the physician treats patients with COVID-19 and the emotions they expressed in response to the situation, 454 participants were recruited in May 2020. Participants saw facial expressions of anger, sadness, happiness, and neutrality which supposedly were shown by physicians who were presented as working either in COVID-19 wards or in an internal medicine ward. Participants rated how competent, empathetic, caring, and likable each physician was, to what degree they would wish to be treated by each physician, and what salary each physician deserved. Physicians treating patients with COVID-19 were seen more positively and as deserving higher pay; they appeared more competent, caring, likable, and were more likely to be chosen as a caregiver compared to physicians not treating patients with COVID-19. The expressed emotions of physicians had a strong impact on how they were perceived, yet this effect was largely unrelated to whether they treated patients with COVID-19 or not such that happy physicians seemed more empathetic, caring, and likable than the physicians who showed negative emotions. Positive regard toward physicians treating patients with COVID-19 was associated with the fact that they were seen as saving lives and not due to the risk imposed by their work.
| S-EPMC8792981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient involvement in health economics modeling has been advocated on numerous grounds, including as a way to better manage social and ethical value judgments in the modeling process. However, some have pointed to potential risks and variables that could influence the overall benefit of involvement. To inform future research, there is a need to generate knowledge on potential benefits, harms, and variables relevant to patient involvement in health economics modeling.MethodsThis analysis used data from a qualitative study in which 22 health economists were asked their views on the possibility of involving patients in the modeling process. Using qualitative methods, the authors organized participants' responses into theory-driven categories ("potential benefits", "potential harms", "variables of interest") and identified data-driven themes and subthemes within those categories.ResultsFindings point to potential benefits and harms to the model, modeler, patient, and modeling process. Variables of interest relevant to future research included patients' specific roles, modeler and patient characteristics, the goals of modeling, dynamics among participators, and features of high-level procedures. The findings raise a number of specific questions that may be fruitful to explore in future research on patient involvement in health economics modeling.
| S-EPMC8200342 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Genomic analyses of experimental hybrids
| PRJEB36154 | ENA
Project description:Time course study that monitored clinical observation data, cytokines from gingival crevicular fluid, and microbial composition from sub-gingival dental plaque.
| PRJEB37444 | ENA
Project description:Scleroderma is a refractory autoimmune skin fibrotic disorder. Alterations of microRNAs in lesional skin could be a new approach to treating the disease. Here, we found that expression of miR-155 was up regulated in lesional skin tissue from patients with either systemic or localized scleroderma, and correlated with fibrosis area. Then we demonstrated the potential of miR-155 as a therapeutic target in pre-clinical scleroderma models. MiR-155(-/-) mice were resistant to bleomycin induced skin fibrosis. Moreover, topical antagomiR-155 could effectively treat mice primed with subcutaneous bleomycin. In primary skin fibroblast, miR-155 silencing could inhibit collagen synthesis function, as well as signaling intensity of two pro-fibrotic pathways, Wnt/?-catenin and Akt, simultaneously. We further showed that miR-155 could regulate the two pathways via directly targeting casein kinase 1? (CK1?) and Src homology 2-containing inositol phosphatase-1 (SHIP-1), as previous reports. Mice with miR-155 knockout or topical antagomir-155 treatment showed inhibited Wnt/?-catenin and Akt signaling in skin upon bleomycin challenge. Together, our data suggest the potential of miR-155 silencing as a promising treatment for dermal fibrosis, especially in topical applications.
| S-EPMC4734331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo test the effectiveness of a non-pharmaceutical programme for obese participants in a rural Eastern Canadian Province using certified health professionals.DesignA prospective quasi-experimental design with repeated premeasure and postmeasure.Participants146 participants with obesity (body mass index >30?kg/m(2)) from rural and urban communities in an Eastern Canadian Province were divided into four groups.InterventionA 6-month intensive active community-based lifestyle intervention (InI) delivered by Certified Exercise Physiologists, Certified Personal Trainers and Registered Dietitians, followed by 6?months of self-management. A second intervention (InII) was nested in InI and consisted of group-mediated cognitive-behavioral intervention (GMCBI) delivered by an exercise psychologist to two of the four InI groups.Outcomes(1) Improving health outcomes among the participants' preactive and postactive 6-month intervention and self-management period, (2) Documenting the impact of InII (GMCBI) and location of the intervention (urban vs rural).ResultsThe 6-month active InI significantly improved cardiovascular health for participants who completed the intervention. InII (GMCBI) significantly lowered the attrition rate among the participants. The self-management period was challenging for the participants and they did not make further gains; however, most were able to maintain the gains achieved during the active intervention. The location of the intervention, urban or rural, had little impact on outcomes.ConclusionsA community-based programme utilising healthcare professionals other than physicians to treat obese patients was effective based on premeasure and postmeasure. During the self-management phase, the participants were able to maintain the gains. Psychological support is essential to participant retention.
| S-EPMC4322212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccording to the threshold model, when faced with a decision under diagnostic uncertainty, physicians should administer treatment if the probability of disease is above a specified threshold and withhold treatment otherwise. The objectives of the present study are to a) evaluate if physicians act according to a threshold model, b) examine which of the existing threshold models [expected utility theory model (EUT), regret-based threshold model, or dual-processing theory] explains the physicians' decision-making best.MethodsA survey employing realistic clinical treatment vignettes for patients with pulmonary embolism and acute myeloid leukemia was administered to forty-one practicing physicians across different medical specialties. Participants were randomly assigned to the order of presentation of the case vignettes and re-randomized to the order of "high" versus "low" threshold case. The main outcome measure was the proportion of physicians who would or would not prescribe treatment in relation to perceived changes in threshold probability.ResultsFewer physicians choose to treat as the benefit/harms ratio decreased (i.e. the threshold increased) and more physicians administered treatment as the benefit/harms ratio increased (and the threshold decreased). When compared to the actual treatment recommendations, we found that the regret model was marginally superior to the EUT model [Odds ratio (OR) = 1.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 2.23; p = 0.056]. The dual-processing model was statistically significantly superior to both EUT model [OR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.67 to 4.08; p < 0.001] and regret model [OR = 2.61, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.77; p = 0.018].ConclusionsWe provide the first empirical evidence that physicians' decision-making can be explained by the threshold model. Of the threshold models tested, the dual-processing theory of decision-making provides the best explanation for the observed empirical results.
| S-EPMC4055375 | biostudies-literature