Medical decision making among patients with heart failure - does migration background matter?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: von dem Knesebeck O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7488718 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Medical decision making among patients with heart failure - does migration background matter?
von dem Knesebeck Olaf O Scherer Martin M Marx Gabriella G Koens Sarah S
BMC family practice 20200913 1
<h4>Background</h4>Some studies, mainly coming from the U.S., indicate disparities in heart failure (HF) treatment according to migration/ethnicity. However, respective results are inconsistent and cannot be transferred to other health care systems. Thus, we will address the following research question: Are there differences in the diagnosis and management of HF between patients with and without a Turkish migration background in Germany?<h4>Methods</h4>A factorial experimental design with video ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDiscussions of medication costs between patients and clinicians are infrequent and often suboptimal. In the context of recently introduced drugs that are effective but expensive, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction provide an ideal population to understand the perspectives of patients with chronic illness on medication cost and cost discussions.MethodsTo explore patients' perspectives on discussing out-of-pocket medication costs with clinicians, 49 adults, aged 44 to 70 years, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were recruited from outpatient heart failure clinics. Descriptive qualitative analysis was performed on open-ended text data.ResultsParticipants who had prior medication-related cost discussions described their experience as generally positive, but about half of the participants had never had a cost discussion with their clinician. Most participants were open to cost discussions with clinicians and preferred that the clinician initiate discussions regarding medication cost. Importantly, these preferences held constant across reported levels of financial burden.ConclusionsThese data suggest a substantial willingness on the part of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to incorporate cost discussions into their care and identify important aspects of these discussions for clinicians to consider when engaging in conversations where cost is relevant. Improving understanding about how to integrate patient preferences regarding cost discussions into clinical encounters is an important priority for advancing patient-centered care.
| S-EPMC7982995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Race influences medical decision making, but its impact on advanced heart failure therapy allocation is unknown. We sought to determine whether patient race influences allocation of advanced heart failure therapies. Methods and Results Members of a national heart failure organization were randomized to clinical vignettes that varied by patient race (black or white man) and were blinded to study objectives. Participants (N=422) completed Likert scale surveys rating factors for advanced therapy allocation and think-aloud interviews (n=44). Survey results were analyzed by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and multivariable regression to identify factors influencing advanced therapy allocation, including interactions with vignette race and participant demographics. Interviews were analyzed using grounded theory. Surveys revealed no differences in overall racial ratings for advanced therapies. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression selected no interactions between vignette race and clinical factors as important in allocation. However, interactions between participants aged ≥40 years and black vignette negatively influenced heart transplant allocation modestly (-0.58; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.0002), with adherence and social history the most influential factors. Interviews revealed sequential decision making: forming overall impression, identifying urgency, evaluating prior care appropriateness, anticipating challenges, and evaluating trust while making recommendations. Race influenced each step: avoiding discussing race, believing photographs may contribute to racial bias, believing the black man was sicker compared with the white man, developing greater concern for trust and adherence with the black man, and ultimately offering the white man transplantation and the black man ventricular assist device implantation. Conclusions Black race modestly influenced decision making for heart transplant, particularly during conversations. Because advanced therapy selection meetings are conversations rather than surveys, allocation may be vulnerable to racial bias.
| S-EPMC6915287 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3893703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background "Financial toxicity" is a concern for patients, but little is known about how patients consider out-of-pocket cost in decisions. Sacubitril-valsartan provides a contemporary scenario to understand financial toxicity. It is guideline recommended for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, yet out-of-pocket costs can be considerable. Methods and Results Structured interviews were conducted with 49 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at heart failure clinics and inpatient services. Patient opinions of the drug and its value were solicited after description of benefits using graphical displays. Descriptive quantitative analysis of closed-ended responses was conducted, and qualitative descriptive analysis of text data was performed. Of participants, 92% (45/49) said that they would definitely or probably switch to sacubitril-valsartan if their physician recommended it and out-of-pocket cost was $5 more per month than their current medication. Only 43% (21/49) would do so if out-of-pocket cost was $100 more per month ( P<0.001). At least 40% across all income categories would be unlikely to take sacubitril-valsartan at $100 more per month. Participants exhibited heterogeneous approaches to cost in decision making and varied on their use and interpretation of probabilistic information. Few (20%) participants stated physicians had initiated a conversation about cost in the past year. Conclusions Out-of-pocket cost variation reflective of contemporary cost sharing substantially influenced stated willingness to take sacubitril-valsartan, a guideline-recommended therapy with mortality benefit. These findings suggest a need for cost transparency to promote shared decision making. They also demonstrate the complexity of cost discussion and need to study how to incorporate out-of-pocket cost into clinical decisions.
| S-EPMC6405699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePatients with malignant glioma (MG) must make ongoing medical treatment decisions concerning a progressive disease that erodes cognition. We prospectively assessed medical decision-making capacity (MDC) in patients with MG using a standardized psychometric instrument.MethodsParticipants were 22 healthy controls and 26 patients with histologically verified MG. Group performance was compared on the Capacity to Consent to Treatment Instrument (CCTI), a psychometric measure of MDC incorporating 4 standards (choice, understanding, reasoning, and appreciation), and on neuropsychological and demographic variables. Capacity outcomes (capable, marginally capable, or incapable) on the CCTI standards were identified for the MG group. Within the MG group, scores on demographic, clinical, and neuropsychological variables were correlated with scores on each CCTI standard, and significant bivariate correlates were subsequently entered into exploratory stepwise regression analyses to identify multivariate cognitive predictors of the CCTI standards.ResultsPatients with MG performed significantly below controls on consent standards of understanding and reasoning, and showed a trend on appreciation. Relative to controls, more than 50% of the patients with MG demonstrated capacity compromise (marginally capable or incapable outcomes) in MDC. In the MG group, cognitive measures of verbal acquisition/recall and, to a lesser extent, semantic fluency predicted performance on the appreciation, reasoning, and understanding standards. Karnofsky score was also associated with CCTI performance.ConclusionsSoon after diagnosis, patients with malignant glioma (MG) have impaired capacity to make treatment decisions relative to controls. Medical decision-making capacity (MDC) impairment in MG seems to be primarily related to the effects of short-term verbal memory deficits. Ongoing assessment of MDC in patients with MG is strongly recommended.
| S-EPMC2833103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe contribution of patients' non-medical characteristics to individual physicians' decision-making has attracted considerable attention, but little information is available on this topic in the context of collective decision-making. Medical decision-making at cancer centres is currently carried out using a collective approach, at MultiDisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings. The aim of this study was to determine how patients' non-medical characteristics are presented at MDT meetings and how this information may affect the team's final medical decisions.DesignObservations were conducted at a French Cancer Centre during MDT meetings at which non-standard cases involving some uncertainty were discussed from March to May 2014. Physicians' verbal statements and predefined contextual parameters were collected with a non-participant observational approach. Non numerical data collected in the form of open notes were then coded for quantitative analysis. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed.ResultsIn the final sample of patients' records included and discussed (N = 290), non-medical characteristics were mentioned in 32.8% (n = 95) of the cases. These characteristics corresponded to demographics in 22.8% (n = 66) of the cases, psychological data in 11.7% (n = 34), and relational data in 6.2% (n = 18). The patient's age and his/her "likeability" were the most frequently mentioned characteristics. In 17.9% of the cases discussed, the final decision was deferred: this outcome was positively associated with the patients' non-medical characteristics and with uncertainty about the outcome of the therapeutic options available.LimitationsThe design of the study made it difficult to draw definite cause-and-effect conclusions.ConclusionThe Social Representations approach suggests that patients' non-medical characteristics constitute a kind of tacit professional knowledge that may be frequently mobilised in physicians' everyday professional practice. The links observed between patients' attributes and the medical decisions made at these meetings show that these attributes should be taken into account in order to understand how medical decisions are reached in difficult situations of this kind.
| S-EPMC4864423 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDual processing theory of human cognition postulates that reasoning and decision-making can be described as a function of both an intuitive, experiential, affective system (system I) and/or an analytical, deliberative (system II) processing system. To date no formal descriptive model of medical decision-making based on dual processing theory has been developed. Here we postulate such a model and apply it to a common clinical situation: whether treatment should be administered to the patient who may or may not have a disease.MethodsWe developed a mathematical model in which we linked a recently proposed descriptive psychological model of cognition with the threshold model of medical decision-making and show how this approach can be used to better understand decision-making at the bedside and explain the widespread variation in treatments observed in clinical practice.ResultsWe show that physician's beliefs about whether to treat at higher (lower) probability levels compared to the prescriptive therapeutic thresholds obtained via system II processing is moderated by system I and the ratio of benefit and harms as evaluated by both system I and II. Under some conditions, the system I decision maker's threshold may dramatically drop below the expected utility threshold derived by system II. This can explain the overtreatment often seen in the contemporary practice. The opposite can also occur as in the situations where empirical evidence is considered unreliable, or when cognitive processes of decision-makers are biased through recent experience: the threshold will increase relative to the normative threshold value derived via system II using expected utility threshold. This inclination for the higher diagnostic certainty may, in turn, explain undertreatment that is also documented in the current medical practice.ConclusionsWe have developed the first dual processing model of medical decision-making that has potential to enrich the current medical decision-making field, which is still to the large extent dominated by expected utility theory. The model also provides a platform for reconciling two groups of competing dual processing theories (parallel competitive with default-interventionalist theories).
| S-EPMC3471048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Meniscal tears and osteoarthritis (OA) frequently coexist, but to our knowledge, no data exist to identify who will benefit from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) versus nonoperative management. Our objective was to evaluate the capability of preoperative information to predict APM outcomes in OA.Using a mathematical model and published data, we combined 2 clinical (mechanical symptoms and pain pattern) and 2 magnetic resonance imaging (tear type and bone marrow lesions) indicators into 36 possible combinations and ranked each combination according to the likelihood of having primarily tear- versus OA-related pain in individuals ages 45-65 years with knee pain, OA, and meniscal tears. By considering alternative thresholds for performing APM, we identified the cutoff rank that maximized the overall population International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score (0-100 scale).Rank 1 (e.g., displaced tear, locking, increased pain, no bone marrow lesions) represented the highest likelihood of APM benefit; rank 36 (e.g., oblique tear, no mechanical symptoms, static pain, severe bone marrow lesions) represented the lowest likelihood of APM benefit. Indeterminate middle ranks included individuals with mixed findings (i.e., 2 findings consistent with high and 2 with low likelihood of APM benefit). APM thresholds between ranks 17 and 23 resulted in >82% of the population receiving treatment producing the greatest possible IKDC improvement, with mean incremental gains in IKDC score of >24 points. Findings were robust across a broad range of indicator assumptions, but were sensitive to outcome assumptions.Among individuals with degenerative meniscal tears and OA, easily obtainable clinical information can differentiate those who are more likely to benefit from APM.
| S-EPMC2804854 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBrain tumor patients are at high risk of impaired medical decision-making capacity (MDC), which can be ethically challenging because it limits their ability to give informed consent to medical treatments or participation in research. The European Association of Neuro-Oncology Palliative Care Multidisciplinary Task Force performed a systematic review to identify relevant evidence with respect to MDC that could be used to give recommendations on how to cope with reduced MDC in brain tumor patients.MethodsA literature search in several electronic databases was conducted up to September 2019, including studies with brain tumor and other neurological patients. Information related to the following topics was extracted: tools to measure MDC, consent to treatment or research, predictive patient- and treatment-related factors, surrogate decision making, and interventions to improve MDC.ResultsA total of 138 articles were deemed eligible. Several structured capacity-assessment instruments are available to aid clinical decision making. These instruments revealed a high incidence of impaired MDC both in brain tumors and other neurological diseases for treatment- and research-related decisions. Incapacity appeared to be mostly determined by the level of cognitive impairment. Surrogate decision making should be considered in case a patient lacks capacity, ensuring that the patient's "best interests" and wishes are guaranteed. Several methods are available that may help to enhance patients' consent capacity.ConclusionsClinical recommendations on how to detect and manage reduced MDC in brain tumor patients were formulated, reflecting among others the timing of MDC assessments, methods to enhance patients' consent capacity, and alternative procedures, including surrogate consent.
| S-EPMC7716185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A growing number of elderly patients with end-stage renal disease start dialysis. We examined elderly (?65 years) patients' views about their decision-making experience after starting dialysis in comparison with patients aged 50-64 years, and patients ?49 years.Ninety-nine patients from 15 outpatient dialysis centers in North Carolina, USA completed a semi-structured interview asking them about the context of decision-making and their decision-making experience, and a 10-item investigator-developed Informed Decision-Making (IDM) questionnaire with binary response options (yes/no).While IDM scores were low for all three groups (<5 out of 10), they were significantly lower for the older group compared to the other two younger groups (p = 0.02). A significantly lower percentage of the older group said that the doctor explained underlying conditions that led to kidney failure (p = 0.04), the impact of dialysis on daily life (p = 0.04), and the life-long need for dialysis (p < 0.01), and that the doctor tried to make sure the patient understood the information (p = 0.01). Also a significantly higher percentage of elderly patients felt the decision was made by the doctor rather than on their own or with their family, or collaboratively with the doctor (p = 0.04).Informed decision-making is significantly poorer in patients aged 65 years or older than in younger patients. Clinicians should communicate clearly about the benefits and burdens of dialysis to older adults and provide an opportunity for them to understand the significant trade-offs that dialysis may require.
| S-EPMC4130809 | biostudies-literature