Dataset Information

Understanding clinical decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional worldwide survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The lack of evidence-based recommendations for therapeutic decisions during the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic creates a unique scenario of clinical decision making which is worth to analyze. We aim to identify the drivers of therapeutic aggressiveness during the first weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This cross-sectional worldwide survey (conducted April 12 to 19, 2020) was aimed at physicians who managed patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Treatment preferences were collected in five different clinical scenarios. We used multilevel mixed-effects ordered logistic regression to identify variables that were associated with the use of more aggressive therapies.

Findings

The survey was completed by 852 physicians from 44 different specialties and 29 countries. The heterogeneity of therapeutic decisions increased as the clinical scenario worsened. Factors associated with aggressive therapeutic decisions were higher self-perceived expertise (high vs. null, OR 1.95, 95%CI 1.31-2.89), perceived quality of COVID-19 publications (high vs. null, OR 1.92, 95%CI 1.17-3.16), and female sex (OR 1.17, 95%CI 1.02-1.33). Conversely, Infectious Diseases specialty, Latin American and North American origin, lower confidence in the treatments chosen, and having published articles indexed in PubMed as the first-author were associated with the use of less aggressive therapies.

Interpretation

Our study provides insight into the drivers of the decision-making process during a new and extreme health emergency. Different factors including the perceived expertise and quality of publications, gender, geographic origin, medical specialty and implication in medical research influenced this process. The clinical severity attenuated the physician's tolerance for uncertainty.

Funding

No funding was required.

SUBMITTER: Martinez-Sanz J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7480231 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInstances of surrogate decision-making are expected to increase with the rise in hospitalised older adults in Japan. Few large-scale studies have comprehensively examined the entire surrogate decision-making process. This study aimed to gather information to assess the current state of surrogate decision-making in Japan.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted using online questionnaires. A total of 1000 surrogate decision-makers responded to the questionnaire. We examined the characteristics of surrogate decision-makers and patients, content of surrogate decision-making meeting regarding life-sustaining treatment between the doctors and surrogate decision-makers, extent of involvement of the various parties in the surrogate decision-making process, judgement grounds for surrogate decision-making, and frequency of involvement in the surrogate decision-making process.ResultsOf the participants, 70.5% were male and 48.3% were eldest sons. Only 7.6% of the patients had left a written record of their preferences and 48.8% of the surrogates reported no knowledge of the patient having expressed their prior intentions regarding medical care in any form. Respondents indicated that their family meetings with healthcare professionals mostly included the information recommended by guidelines in a surrogate decision-making meeting in Japan. Most participants reported a good understanding of the meeting content. Although many participants based their decisions on multiple grounds, surrogates' considerations may not adequately reflect respect for patient autonomy in Japan. Specifically, the eldest son considered his own preference more frequently than that of the other surrogate decision-makers. In 26.1% of the cases, either zero or one family meeting with healthcare professionals was held. In these cases, significantly fewer decisions involved the participation of healthcare professionals other than the doctor compared to cases with multiple meetings.ConclusionsSurrogate decisions in Japan are most commonly made by eldest sons and may not frequently consider the perspectives of other surrogates. The finding that patient preferences were rarely known suggests a role for increased advance care planning.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the world in early 2020. In France, General Practitioners (GPs) were not involved in the care organization's decision-making process before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This omission could have generated stress for GPs. We aimed first to estimate the self-perception of stress as defined by the 10-item Perceived Stress Score (PSS-10), at the beginning of the pandemic in France, among GPs from the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, a french administrative area severely impacted by COVID-19. Second, we aimed to identify factors associated with a self-perceived stress (PSS-10 ≥ 27) among socio-demographic characteristics of GPs, their access to reliable information and to personal protective equipment during the pandemic, and their exposure to well established psychosocial risk at work.MethodsWe conducted an online cross-sectional survey between 8th April and 10th May 2020. The self-perception of stress was evaluated using the PSS-10, so to see the proportion of "not stressed" (≤20), "borderline" (21 ≤ PSS-10 ≤ 26), and "stressed" (≥27) GPs. The agreement to 31 positive assertions related to possible sources of stress identified by the scientific study committee was measured using a 10-point numeric scale. In complete cases, factors associated with stress (PSS-10 ≥ 27) were investigated using logistic regression, adjusted on gender, age and practice location. A supplementary analysis of the verbatims was made.ResultsOverall, 898 individual answers were collected, of which 879 were complete. A total of 437 GPs (49%) were stressed (PSS-10 ≥ 27), and 283 GPs (32%) had a very high level of stress (PSS-10 ≥ 30). Self-perceived stress was associated with multiple components, and involved classic psychosocial risk factors such as emotional requirements. However, in this context of health crisis, the primary source of stress was the diversity and quantity of information from diverse sources (614 GPs (69%, OR = 2.21, 95%CI [1.40-3.50], p < 0.001). Analysis of verbatims revealed that GPs felt isolated in a hospital-based model.ConclusionThe first wave of the pandemic was a source of stress for GPs. The diversity and quantity of information received from the health authorities were among the main sources of stress.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough previous research shows broad differences in the impact of online health information on patient-practitioner decision making, specific research is required to identify and conceptualize patient decision-making styles related to the use of online health information and to differentiate segments according to the influence of online information on patient decision making and interactions with health professionals.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate patients' decision making in relation to online health information and interactions with health care practitioners. We also aimed to present a typology of patients based on significant differences in their decision making.MethodsWe applied a large-scale cross-sectional research design using a survey. Data, generated using a questionnaire that was administered by companies specializing in providing online panels, were collected from random samples of baby boomers in the United Kingdom, the United States, and New Zealand. The total sample comprised 996 baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964, who had used the internet in the previous 6 months to search for and share health-related information. Data were analyzed using hierarchical cluster analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, as well as one-way analysis of variance, chi-square tests, and paired sample t tests.ResultsAnalyses identified 3 key decision-making styles that served as the base for 4 unique and stable segments of patients with distinctive decision-making styles: the Collaborators (229/996, 23.0%), the Autonomous-Collaborators (385/996, 38.7%), the Assertive-Collaborators (111/996, 11.1%), and the Passives (271/996, 27.2%). Profiles were further developed for these segments according to key differences in the online health information behavior, demographics, and interactional behaviors of patients. The typology demonstrates that collaborative decision making is dominant among patients either in its pure form or in combination with autonomous or assertive decision making. In other words, most patients (725/996, 72.8%) show significant collaboration in their decision making with health care professionals. However, at times, patients in the combination Autonomous-Collaborative segment prefer to exercise individual autonomy in their decision making, and those in the combination Assertive-Collaborative segment prefer to be assertive with health professionals. Finally, this study shows that a substantial number of patients adopt a distinctly passive decision-making style (271/996, 27.2%).ConclusionsThe patient typology provides a framework for distinguishing practice-relevant and addressable segments with important implications for health care practitioners, including better-targeted communication programs for patients and more successful outcomes for health care services in the long term.

Project description:ObjectivesPressures on healthcare systems due to COVID-19 has impacted patients without COVID-19 with surgery disproportionally affected. This study aims to understand the impact on the initial management of patients with brain tumours by measuring changes to normal multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision making.DesignA prospective survey performed in UK neurosurgical units performed from 23 March 2020 until 24 April 2020.SettingRegional neurosurgical units outside London (as the pandemic was more advanced at time of study).ParticipantsRepresentatives from all units were invited to collect data on new patients discussed at their MDT meetings during the study period. Each unit decided if management decision for each patient had changed due to COVID-19.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome measures included number of patients where the decision to undergo surgery changed compared with standard management usually offered by that MDT. Secondary outcome measures included changes in surgical extent, numbers referred to MDT, number of patients denied surgery not receiving any treatment and reasons for any variation across the UK.Results18 units (75%) provided information from 80 MDT meetings that discussed 1221 patients. 10.7% of patients had their management changed-the majority (68%) did not undergo surgery and more than half of this group not undergoing surgery had no active treatment. There was marked variation across the UK (0%-28% change in management). Units that did not change management could maintain capacity with dedicated oncology lists. Low volume units were less affected.ConclusionCOVID-19 has had an impact on patients requiring surgery for malignant brain tumours, with patients receiving different treatments-most commonly not receiving surgery or any treatment at all. The variations show dedicated cancer operating lists may mitigate these pressures.Study registrationThis study was registered with the Royal College of Surgeons of England's COVID-19 Research Group (https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/coronavirus/rcs-covid-research-group/).

Project description:BackgroundDue to the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, conventional face-to-face academic conferences have been restricted, and many of these conferences have moved onto the internet.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the virtual conferences in the field of urology during the COVID-19 pandemic and provide suggestions for better organization of such conferences.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 30 to June 15, 2020, in China. Our team designed a 23-item questionnaire to investigate the conferences attended by urologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. SPSS 22.0 (IBM Corporation) was applied to analyze the data collected.ResultsA total of 330 Chinese urologists participated in our survey, and the response rate was 89.7% (330/368). Among the participants, 40.9% (135/330) were associate chief physicians. The proportion of participants who took part in conventional face-to-face academic conferences decreased from 92.7% (306/330) before the COVID-19 pandemic to 22.1% (73/330) during the pandemic (P<.001). In contrast, the proportion of urologists who took part in virtual conferences increased from 69.4% (229/330) to 90% (297/330) (P<.001). Most urologists (70.7%, 210/297) chose to participate in the virtual conferences at home and thought that a meeting length of 1-2 hours was most appropriate. Among the urologists, 73.7% (219/297) reported that their participation in the virtual conferences went smoothly, while the remaining respondents reported that they had experienced lags in video and audio streaming during the virtual conferences. When comparing conventional face-to-face conferences with virtual conferences, 70.7% (210/297) of the respondents thought that both conference formats were acceptable, while 17.9% (53/297) preferred virtual conferences and 11.5% (34/297) preferred conventional face-to-face meetings.ConclusionsVirtual conferences are increasing in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, many aspects of these conferences could be improved for better organization.