Dataset Information

The Attitudes of Physicians and the General Public toward Prognostic Disclosure of Different Serious Illnesses: a Korean Nationwide Study.

ABSTRACT: Background: Although international guidelines recommend palliative care approaches for many serious illnesses, the palliative needs of patients with serious illnesses other than cancer are often unmet, mainly due to insufficient prognosis-related discussion. We investigated physicians' and the general public's respective attitudes toward prognostic disclosure for several serious illnesses.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 928 physicians, sourced from 12 hospitals and the Korean Medical Association, and 1,005 members of the general public, sourced from all 17 administrative divisions in Korea.

Results: For most illnesses, most physicians (adjusted proportions - end-organ failure, 99.0%; incurable genetic or neurologic disease, 98.5%; acquired immune deficiency syndrome [AIDS], 98.4%; stroke or Parkinson's disease, 96.0%; and dementia, 89.6%) and members of the general public (end-organ failure, 92.0%; incurable genetic or neurologic disease, 92.5%; AIDS, 91.5%; stroke or Parkinson's disease, 92.1%; and dementia, 86.9%) wanted to be informed if they had a terminal prognosis. For physicians and the general public, the primary factor to consider when disclosing terminal status was "the patient's right to know his/her condition" (31.0%). Yet, the general public was less likely to prefer prognostic disclosure than physicians. Particularly, when their family members were patients, more than 10% of the general public did not want patients to be informed of their terminal prognosis. For the general public, the main reason for not disclosing prognosis was "psychological burden such as anxiety and depression" (35.8%), while for the physicians it was "disclosure would have no beneficial effect" (42.4%).

Conclusion: Most Physicians and the general public agreed that disclosure of a terminal prognosis respects patient autonomy for several serious illnesses. The low response rate of physicians might limit the generalizability of the results.

SUBMITTER: Oh SN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7721562 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Attitudes of Physicians and the General Public toward Prognostic Disclosure of Different Serious Illnesses: a Korean Nationwide Study.

Oh Si Nae SN Kim Young Ae YA Kim Yu Jung YJ Shim Hyun Jeong HJ Song Eun Kee EK Kang Jung Hun JH Kwon Jung Hye JH Lee Jung Lim JL Lee Soon Nam SN Maeng Chi Hoon CH Kang Eun Joo EJ Do Young Rok YR Yun Hwan Jung HJ Jung Kyung Hae KH Yun Young Ho YH

Journal of Korean medical science 20201207 47

<h4>Background</h4>Although international guidelines recommend palliative care approaches for many serious illnesses, the palliative needs of patients with serious illnesses other than cancer are often unmet, mainly due to insufficient prognosis-related discussion. We investigated physicians' and the general public's respective attitudes toward prognostic disclosure for several serious illnesses.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 928 physicians, sourced from 12 hospitals an ...[more]

PMID: 33289368

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTransparency of industry payments to physicians could engender greater public trust in physicians but might also lead to greater mistrust of physicians and the medical profession, adversely affecting the patient-physician relationship.ObjectiveTo examine the association between nationwide public disclosure of industry payments and Americans' trust in their physicians and trust in the medical profession.Design, setting, and participantsSurvey study using difference-in-difference analyses of a national longitudinal survey comparing changes in states where industry payments were newly disclosed by Open Payments with changes in states where payments information was already available because of state sunshine laws. The US population-based surveys were conducted in September 2014-shortly before the initial public disclosure of industry payments-and again in September 2016. Final analyses were conducted September through December 2018. Participants were adults 18 years and older (n = 1388).ExposuresNational public disclosure through Open Payments of payments made by pharmaceutical and medical device firms to physicians.Main outcomes and measuresWake Forest measure of trust in one's own physician and Wake Forest measure of trust in the medical profession.ResultsOf the 3542 original survey respondents, 2180 (61.5%) completed the second survey 2 years later, and 1388 named the same most frequently seen physician in both surveys. The mean age of respondents at the time of the first survey was 53 years, and 749 (54.0%) were women. Race/ethnicity was white in 76.6% (1063 of 1388) and non-Hispanic black in 8.0% (111 of 1388). Public disclosure of payments was associated with lower trust in one's own physician regardless of whether respondents knew their physicians had received payments (decrease in Wake Forest measure of trust in one's own physician of 0.56 point; 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.32 point; P < .001). Open Payments was also associated with lower trust in the medical profession (decrease in Wake Forest measure of trust in the medical profession of 0.35 point; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.12 point; P = .004).Conclusions and relevanceNationwide public disclosure of industry payments may be associated with decreased trust in physicians and in the medical profession. More judicious presentation of payments information may counteract unintended negative trust and spillover consequences of public disclosure.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Experience with open disclosure and its study are restricted to certain western countries. In addition, there are concerns that open disclosure may be less suitable in non-western countries. The present study explored and compared the in-depth perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea. METHODS:We applied the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist to this qualitative study. We conducted 20 in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions with 16 physicians and 18 members of the general public. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were performed according to semi-structured guidelines developed according to a systematic review of open disclosure. We conducted a directed content analysis by analyzing the verbatim transcripts and field notes in accordance with the predetermined guidelines. RESULTS:Open disclosure perceptions were summarized in terms of the "five Ws and one H" (who, what, where, when, why, and how). All physician and general public participants acknowledged the normative justifiability of open disclosure. The participants mostly agreed on the known effects of open disclosure, but the physicians had negative opinions on its expected effects, such as decreased intention of the general public to file lawsuits and increased credibility of medical professionals. Generally, the participants thought that open disclosure is required for medical errors causing major harm. However, the physicians and general public had conflicting opinions on the need for open disclosure of near misses. Most physicians did not know how to conduct open disclosure and some physicians had bad experiences due to inappropriate or incomplete open disclosure. CONCLUSION:Physicians and the general public in Korea acknowledge the need for open disclosure. Guidelines according to the type of patient safety incident are required to encourage physicians to more readily conduct open disclosure. Furthermore, hospitals need to consider organizing a dedicated team and hiring experts for open disclosure.

Project description:Results of Alzheimer disease (AD) research assessments typically are not disclosed to participants. Recent research has suggested interest in disclosure, but, to our knowledge, few studies have accounted for awareness of potential benefits and limitations of disclosure.To determine the attitudes of cognitively normal research participants and members of the general public regarding disclosure of AD research results.Participants in a longitudinal aging study (Alzheimer Disease Research Center [ADRC]) were given preintervention and postintervention surveys about disclosure attitudes. In a general public sample (The American Panel Survey), participants responded to a similar survey about disclosure attitudes.Participants in the ADRC sample were randomly assigned to a group (n = 119) that read an education intervention about the usefulness of AD biomarkers or to a placebo group (n = 100) that read as its intervention general information about the ADRC. Participants in the general public sample read a brief vignette describing participation in a longitudinal AD study.Interest in disclosure of AD research results.Cognitively normal ADRC participants (n = 219) were 60.7% (n = 133) female, 83.6% (n = 183) of white race, and reported a mean of 15.91 years of education. Twenty-nine individuals refused participation. The American Panel Survey participants (n = 1418) indicated they did not have AD and were 50.5% (n = 716) female, 76.7% (n = 1087) of white race, and reported a mean of 13.85 years of education. Overall, 77.6% of eligible participants (1583 of 2041) completed the survey in July 2014. Interest in disclosure was high among the ADRC participants (55.1% [119 of 216] were "extremely interested"). Viewing the education intervention predicted lower interest in disclosure (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.15-3.53; P =?.02). High subjective risk of AD, a family history of AD, and minimal attendance at research meetings were associated with high interest after the intervention. In the general public, interest was lower overall (12.5% [174 of 1389] were "extremely interested"), but the subset of participants most likely to join an AD research study reported higher interest (43.5% [40 of 92] were extremely interested).Experience with AD appears to increase interest in disclosure of AD research results. Learning about potential limitations of disclosure somewhat tempered interest. These findings should inform the development of disclosure policies for asymptomatic individuals in AD studies.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate German physicians' attitudes towards and experiences with voluntary disclosure of payments by pharmaceutical companies in a public database and their impact on future decisions for or against disclosure.DesignA national cross-sectional survey conducted in 2018 among physicians who voluntarily disclosed at least one payment in the German transparency regulation.SettingRetrospective paper-pencil questionnaire about attitudes towards and experiences with voluntary payment disclosures in the first (2015) and second (2016) years of the German transparency regulation.ParticipantsGerman physicians who disclosed either in the first year only, the second year only, or in both years of the transparency regulation.Primary outcomes(1) The probability to disclose in 2016, predicted by physicians' experience of reactions from others in 2015, descriptive norms and attitudes towards transparency; (2) Frequency and (3) Content of reactions from others in 2015 compared with 2016.ResultsData of 234 respondents were analysed (n=42, 45 and 147 physicians who disclosed in 2015, 2016 or both years, respectively). The probability to disclose in 2016 was not predicted by perceived reactions, norms or attitudes towards transparency (p>0.01). Most participants reported not to have received any reactions by patients (190/234, 81%), colleagues (128/234, 55%) or the private environment (153/234, 65%). Neither frequency nor content of reactions differed between the first and second years (scale 1-5; frequency: Mdn 2015,2016 = 1.33 vs 1.00, r b=-0.17, p>0.01; content: Mdn 2015,2016 = 3.00 vs 3.00, r b=0.19, p>0.01). However, media reporting, fear of reputational damage and a feeling of being defamed were mentioned as reasons for non-disclosure.ConclusionsWhile confirmatory analyses did not provide significant results, descriptive analyses showed that participants who voluntarily disclose payments mainly do not experience any reactions towards their disclosures but report fears about losing their reputation due to disclosures.

Dataset Information

The Attitudes of Physicians and the General Public toward Prognostic Disclosure of Different Serious Illnesses: a Korean Nationwide Study.

Publications

The Attitudes of Physicians and the General Public toward Prognostic Disclosure of Different Serious Illnesses: a Korean Nationwide Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets