Dataset Information

Patient-physician agreement on the content of CHD prevention discussions.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Little is known about agreement between patients and physicians on content and outcomes of clinical discussions. A common perception of content and outcomes may be desirable to optimize decision making and clinical care. OBJECTIVE:To determine patient-physician agreement on content and outcomes of coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention discussions. DESIGN:Cross-sectional survey nested within a randomized CHD prevention study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:University internal medicine clinic; 24 physicians and 157 patients. METHODS:Following one clinic visit, we surveyed patients and physicians on discussion content, decision making and final decisions about CHD prevention. For comparison, we audio-recorded, transcribed and coded 20 patient-physician visits. We calculated percent agreement between patient/physician reports, patient/transcription reports and physician/transcription reports. We calculated Cohen's kappas to compare patient/physician perspectives. RESULTS:Patients and physicians agreed on whether CHD was discussed in 130 visits (83%; kappa = 0.55; 95% CI 0.40-0.70). When discussions occurred, they agreed about discussion content (pros versus cons) in 53% of visits (kappa = 0.15; 95% CI -0.01-0.30) and physicians' recommendations in 73% (kappa = 0.44; 95% CI 0.28-0.66). Patients and physicians agreed on final decisions to take medication in 78% (kappa = 0.58; 95% CI 0.45-0.71) and change lifestyle in 69% (kappa = 0.38; 95% CI 0.24-0.53). They agreed less often, 43% (kappa = 0.13; 95% CI -0.11-0.37) about degree of involvement in decision making. Audio-recorded results were similar, but showed very low agreement between transcripts and patients' and physicians' self-report on discussion content and decision making. CONCLUSIONS:Disagreements about clinical discussions and decision making may be common. Future work is needed to determine: how widespread such agreements are; whether they impact clinical outcomes; and the relative importance of the subjective experience versus objective steps of shared decision making.

SUBMITTER: Behrend L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4043219 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient-physician agreement on the content of CHD prevention discussions.

Behrend Lindy L Maymani Hossein H Diehl Megan M Gizlice Ziya Z Cai Jianwen J Sheridan Stacey L SL

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20110301

<h4>Background</h4>Little is known about agreement between patients and physicians on content and outcomes of clinical discussions. A common perception of content and outcomes may be desirable to optimize decision making and clinical care.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine patient-physician agreement on content and outcomes of coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention discussions.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional survey nested within a randomized CHD prevention study.<h4>Setting and participants</h4>Univ ...[more]

PMID: 20673244

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The quality of patient-physician discussions about chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care has not been studied previously. STUDY DESIGN:Cross-sectional study. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS:We audiotaped encounters between 236 patients with hypertension and their primary care physicians (n = 40). PREDICTORS:Patient, physician, and encounter characteristics. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS:We described the occurrence and characteristics (content, use of technical terms, and physician assessment of patient comprehension of new concepts) of CKD discussions. We assessed patient and physician characteristics associated with CKD discussion occurrence. RESULTS:Many patients (mean age, 59 years) had uncontrolled hypertension (51%), diabetes (44%), and/or 3 or more comorbid conditions (51%). Most primary care physicians practiced (52%) fewer than 10 years. CKD discussions occurred in few (26%; n = 61) encounters, with content focused on laboratory assessment (89%), risk-factor treatment (28%), and causes (26%) of CKD. In encounters that included a CKD discussion, physicians used technical terms (28%; n = 17) and rarely assessed patients' comprehension (2%; n = 1). CKD discussions were statistically significantly less common in visits of patients with some (vs no) college education (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.56), with 3 or more (vs fewer) comorbid conditions (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.96), and who saw physicians with more (vs fewer) than 10 years of practice experience (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.80). CKD discussions were more common during longer encounters (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.04-1.65) and encounters in which diabetes was (vs was not) discussed (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.22-6.77). LIMITATIONS:Generalizability of our findings may be limited. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-physician discussions about CKD in high-risk primary care patients were infrequent. Physicians used technical terms and infrequently assessed patients' understanding of new CKD concepts. Efforts to improve the frequency and content of patient-physician CKD discussions in primary care could improve patients' clinical outcomes.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Little is known about whether patients and physicians perceive lung cancer screening (LCS) as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation or the degree to which physicians in "real world" settings link LCS discussions with smoking cessation counseling. We sought to characterize patient and physician perspectives of discussions about smoking cessation during LCS. METHODS:We conducted a qualitative study (interviews and focus groups) with 21 physicians and 28 smokers screened in four diverse hospitals. Transcripts were analyzed for characteristics of communication about smoking cessation and LCS, the perceived effect on motivation to quit smoking, the degree to which physicians leverage LCS as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation, and suggestions to improve patient-physician communication about smoking cessation in the context of LCS. RESULTS:Patients reported that LCS made them more cognizant of the health consequences of smoking, priming them for a teachable moment. While physicians and patients both acknowledged that smoking cessation counseling was frequent, they described little connection between their discussions regarding LCS and smoking cessation counseling. Physicians identified several barriers to integrating discussions on smoking cessation and LCS. They volunteered communication strategies by which LCS could be leveraged to promote smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS:LCS highlights the harms of smoking to patients who are chronic, heavy smokers and thus may serve as a teachable moment for promoting smoking cessation. However, this opportunity is typically missed in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS:LCS highlights the harms of smoking to heavily addicted smokers. Yet both physicians and patients reported little connection between LCS and tobacco treatment discussions due to multiple barriers. On-site tobacco treatment programs and post-screening messaging tailored to the LCS results are needed to maximize the health outcomes of LCS, including smoking quit rates and longer-term smoking-related morbidity and mortality.

Dataset Information

Patient-physician agreement on the content of CHD prevention discussions.

Publications

Patient-physician agreement on the content of CHD prevention discussions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets