Dataset Information

Audio-/Videorecording Clinic Visits for Patient's Personal Use in the United States: Cross-Sectional Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Few clinics in the United States routinely offer patients audio or video recordings of their clinic visits. While interest in this practice has increased, to date, there are no data on the prevalence of recording clinic visits in the United States.

Objective

Our objectives were to (1) determine the prevalence of audiorecording clinic visits for patients' personal use in the United States, (2) assess the attitudes of clinicians and public toward recording, and (3) identify whether policies exist to guide recording practices in 49 of the largest health systems in the United States.

Methods

We administered 2 parallel cross-sectional surveys in July 2017 to the internet panels of US-based clinicians (SERMO Panel) and the US public (Qualtrics Panel). To ensure a diverse range of perspectives, we set quotas to capture clinicians from 8 specialties. Quotas were also applied to the public survey based on US census data (gender, race, ethnicity, and language other than English spoken at home) to approximate the US adult population. We contacted 49 of the largest health systems (by clinician number) in the United States by email and telephone to determine the existence, or absence, of policies to guide audiorecordings of clinic visits for patients' personal use. Multiple logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with recording.

Results

In total, 456 clinicians and 524 public respondents completed the surveys. More than one-quarter of clinicians (129/456, 28.3%) reported that they had recorded a clinic visit for patients' personal use, while 18.7% (98/524) of the public reported doing so, including 2.7% (14/524) who recorded visits without the clinician's permission. Amongst clinicians who had not recorded a clinic visit, 49.5% (162/327) would be willing to do so in the future, while 66.0% (346/524) of the public would be willing to record in the future. Clinician specialty was associated with prior recording: specifically oncology (odds ratio [OR] 5.1, 95% CI 1.9-14.9; P=.002) and physical rehabilitation (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.4-11.6; P=.01). Public respondents who were male (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.26-3.61; P=.005), younger (OR 0.73 for a 10-year increase in age, 95% CI 0.60-0.89; P=.002), or spoke a language other than English at home (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.09-3.59; P=.02) were more likely to have recorded a clinic visit. None of the large health systems we contacted reported a dedicated policy; however, 2 of the 49 health systems did report an existing policy that would cover the recording of clinic visits for patient use. The perceived benefits of recording included improved patient understanding and recall. Privacy and medicolegal concerns were raised.

Conclusions

Policy guidance from health systems and further examination of the impact of recordings-positive or negative-on care delivery, clinician-related outcomes, and patients' behavioral and health-related outcomes is urgently required.

SUBMITTER: Barr PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6231772 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Audio-/Videorecording Clinic Visits for Patient's Personal Use in the United States: Cross-Sectional Survey.

Barr Paul J PJ Bonasia Kyra K Verma Kanak K Dannenberg Michelle D MD Yi Cameron C Andrews Ethan E Palm Marisha M Palm Marisha M Cavanaugh Kerri L KL Masel Meredith M Durand Marie-Anne MA

Journal of medical Internet research 20180912 9

<h4>Background</h4>Few clinics in the United States routinely offer patients audio or video recordings of their clinic visits. While interest in this practice has increased, to date, there are no data on the prevalence of recording clinic visits in the United States.<h4>Objective</h4>Our objectives were to (1) determine the prevalence of audiorecording clinic visits for patients' personal use in the United States, (2) assess the attitudes of clinicians and public toward recording, and (3) identi ...[more]

PMID: 30209029

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundContinuity of care is particularly important for patients with chronic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes (T2D). Continuity is shown to reduce overall health service utilization among people with diabetes, however, evidence about how it relates to the utilization of outpatient specialist services in Norway is lacking. The aim of this study was to investigate continuity of GP care for people with T2D, and its association with the use of outpatient specialist health care services.MethodsWe used e-mail questionnaire data obtained from members of The Norwegian Diabetes Association in 2018. Eligible for analyses were 494 respondents with T2D and at least one GP visit during the previous year. By descriptive statistics and logistic regressions, we studied usual provider continuity (UPC) and duration of the patient-GP relationship and associations of these measures with somatic outpatient specialist visits. Analyses were adjusted for gender, age, education, self-rated health, and diabetes duration.ResultsMean age was 62.6 years and mean UPC was 0.85 (CI 0.83-0.87). Two thirds of the sample (66.0%) had made all visits to the regular GP during the previous year (full continuity). Among these, 48.1% had made one or more specialist visits during the previous year, compared to 65.2% among those without full continuity. The probability of outpatient specialist visits was significantly lower among participants with full continuity, compared to those without full continuity (Odds Ratio 0.53, Confidence Interval 0.35-0.80). The probability of visiting outpatient specialist services was not associated with duration of the patient-GP relationship.ConclusionsWe conclude that continuity of care, as measured by Usual Provider Continuity, is high and associated with reduced use of somatic outpatient specialist services in people with T2D in Norway. Continuity and its benefits will become increasingly important as the number of older people with diabetes and other chronic diseases increases.

Project description:BackgroundDepression (major depressive disorder [MDD]) affects the functioning of patients in many facets of life. Very few large-scale studies to date have compared health and economic related outcomes of those with versus without depression, and across various depression severity groups. We aimed to evaluate humanistic and economic burden in respondents with and without depression diagnosis, and across symptom severity groups.MethodsData from the 2017 US National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) were utilized. Of the adult respondents (N = 75,004), 59,786 were < 65 years old. Respondents not meeting eligibility criteria were excluded (e.g., those self-reporting bipolar disorder or experiencing depression in past 12 months but no depression diagnosis). Overall, data from 39,331 eligible respondents (aged 18-64 years) were analyzed; and comprised respondents 'with depression diagnosis' (n = 8853; self-reporting physician diagnosis of depression and experiencing depression in past 12 months) and respondents 'without depression diagnosis' (n = 30,478; no self-reported physician diagnosis of depression and not experiencing depression). Respondents with depression were further examined across depression severity based on Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Outcome measures included health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL; Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form [SF-36v2]: mental and physical component summary [MCS and PCS]; Short-Form 6 Dimensions [SF-6D]; and EuroQol 5 Dimensions [EQ-5D]), work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI), and health resource utilization (HRU). Multivariate analysis was performed to examine group differences after adjusting covariates.ResultsRespondents with depression diagnosis reported significantly higher rates of diagnosed anxiety and sleep problems versus those without depression (for both; P < 0.001). Adjusted MCS, PCS, SF-6D, and EQ-5D scores were significantly lower in respondents with depression versus those without depression (all P < 0.001). Consistently, respondents with depression reported higher absenteeism, presenteeism, and overall WPAI, as well as greater number of provider visits, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations compared with those without depression (all P < 0.001). Further, burden of each outcome increased with an increase in disease severity.ConclusionsDiagnosed depression was associated with lower health-related quality-of-life and work productivity, and higher healthcare utilization than those without depression, and burden increased with an increase in symptom severity. The results show the burden of depression remains high even among those experiencing minimal symptoms.

Project description:Introduction:While patients' perspectives toward pharmacotherapy are expected to be directly influenced by their motivation and understanding of the treatment that they are currently receiving, no study has comprehensively investigated the impact of insight into illness and knowledge for the ongoing pharmacotherapy on the attitude towards drug treatment among patients with schizophrenia. Materials and Methods:One hundred forty-eight Japanese outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia, according to the International Classification of Diseases 10th edition, were included (mean±SD age, 47.3±12.4 years; 90 men (60.8%)). Attitudes toward antipsychotic treatment and insight into illness were assessed with the Drug Attitude Inventory-10 (DAI-10) and the VAGUS, respectively. In addition, a multiple-choice questionnaire that was designed to examine patients' knowledge about therapeutic effects, types, and implicated neurotransmitters of antipsychotic drugs they were receiving was utilized. Results:The mean±SD of DAI-10 score was 4.7±4.2. The multiple regression analysis found that lower Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores, higher VAGUS scores, and longer illness duration were significantly associated with higher DAI-10 scores (?=-0.226, P=0.009; ?=0.250, P=0.008; ?=0.203, P=0.034, respectively). There was a significant difference in the DAI-10 scores between the subjects who gave more accurate answers regarding the effects of their primary antipsychotic and those who did not (mean±SD, 5.57±4.38 vs 4.13±4.04, P=0.043); however, this finding failed to survive the multiple regression analysis. Conclusion:Better insight into illness and treatment, lower illness severity, longer illness duration, and possibly greater knowledge about the therapeutic effects of medications may lead to better attitudes towards pharmacotherapy among patients with schizophrenia, which has an important implication for this typically chronic mental condition requiring long-term antipsychotic treatment to sustain stability.

Project description:Background: Choosing between deep brain stimulation (DBS), Levodopa-Carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG), or continuous subcutaneous Apomorphine infusion (CSAI) in advanced Parkinson's disease is a complex decision. It is paramount to combine evidence with the professional's expertise and the patient's preferences. The patient's preferences can be elicited and integrated into the treatment choice through shared decision-making (SDM). Objective: In this cross-sectional survey study we explored patient's involvement in decision-making and identified facilitators and barriers for shared decision-making (SDM) in advanced Parkinson from the patient's perspective. Methods: We invited 180 Dutch persons with Parkinson who started DBS, LCIG, or CSAI in the previous 3 years to complete a questionnaire. Questions covered three topics; (1) preferred and experienced roles in the decision process for an advanced treatment, (2) information needs to make a decision and actually received information, and (3) factors that had positively or negatively influenced shared decision-making (SDM). Results: One hundred and twenty one participants completed the questionnaire. The large majority preferred to be involved in the decision-making (93%), and most respondents had experienced an active role (85%). In about half of the respondents (47%), their preferred role did not match their experienced role; 28% had a more active role than they would have preferred. Although 77% perceived to be fully informed at the time of decision, only 41% stated they knew all three therapeutic options. Participants identified the most important facilitators for shared decision-making (SDM) at the patient's level (i.e., perceiving the decision to be his own choice), at the neurologist's level (i.e., having expertise on all treatment options, and taking time for the decision), and within the professional-patient relationship (i.e., trust and having an open discussion). The main barriers for shared decision-making (SDM) existed at the patient's level (i.e., perceiving there is no choice), neurologist's level (own treatment preference), and organizational level (i.e., no research available that compares treatments, multiple professionals involved, and lack of consultation time). Conclusions: Patients want to be involved and feel involved when choosing an advanced treatment, but often do not know all treatment options. Implementation of true patient involvement needs personalized information provision on all treatment options and improvement on how this information is communicated.

Project description:To assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of the patients who underwent prone positioning during their COVID-19 illness in the hospital.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingAga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.ParticipantsCOVID-19-recovered patients.InterventionsNone.Main outcomes and measuresKnowledge was assessed by five questions with a dichotomous response (yes/no). An yes response was awarded 1 score. Since there were five questions, five would be the highest score. Patients' perceptions of the therapy were assessed by four questions, each scored on a Likert scale of 5 (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree). As it had four questions, the maximum score achieved could therefore be 20. Proning practices were assessed using seven questions: four were used to calculate practice scores, whereas three were open-ended regarding the patient's experience. Each question carries a different score, and the maximum score was 8.ResultsThe study included 98 patients. The mean age of the patients was 57 years (sd, 12.2 yr). Majority of the patients were males (70.4%). 69.1% of males and 76.6% of females fell in the poor knowledge group. The poor knowledge cohort had an educational level of 48% in high school, 45.5% in graduates, and 6% in postgraduates. Compared with 56.5% of males, 73% of females preferred prone positioning. Sixty percent of those with a high school education viewed prone positioning favorably, whereas 46% of those with graduate and postgraduate did. Seventy-nine percent of males and 63% of females scored positively on the practice questionnaire. Eighty percent of graduates and postgraduates preferred proning practices to 67% of participants with high school education levels.Conclusions and relevanceOur study population had a little understanding of awake proning, found it unpleasant, and practiced for a shorter period than advised. Despite the overall negative attitude toward the position, our patients highly recommend this position to future patients.

Dataset Information

Audio-/Videorecording Clinic Visits for Patient's Personal Use in the United States: Cross-Sectional Survey.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Audio-/Videorecording Clinic Visits for Patient's Personal Use in the United States: Cross-Sectional Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets