Patient and provider-level factors associated with changes in utilization of treatments in response to evidence on ineffectiveness or harm.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Smith LB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7725279 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPatients can provide valuable information missing from traditional sources of safety data, thus adding new insights about factors that lead to preventable harm. In this study, researchers determined associations between patient-reported contributory factors and patient-reported harms experienced after an adverse event (AE).MethodsA secondary analysis was conducted of a national sample of patient-reported AEs (surgical, medication, diagnostic, and hospital-acquired infection) gathered through an online questionnaire between January 2010 and February 2016. Generalized logit multivariable regression was used to assess the association between patient-reported contributory factors and patient-reported harms (grouped as nonphysical harm only, physical harm only, physical harm and emotional or financial harm, and all three harms) and adjusted for patient and AE characteristics.ResultsOne third of patients (32.6%) reported experiencing all three harms, 27.3% reported physical harms and one additional harm, 25.5% reported physical harms only, and 14.7% reported nonphysical harms only. Patients reporting all three harms were 2.5 times more likely to have filed a report with a responsible authority (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23-5.01) and 3.3 times more likely to have also experienced a surgical complication (95% CI = 1.42-7.51). Odds of reporting problems related to communication between clinician and patients/families or clinician-related behavioral issues was 13% higher in those experiencing all three harm types (95% CI = 1.07-1.19).ConclusionPatients' experiences are important to identify safety issues and reduce harm and should be included in patient safety measurement and improvement activities. These findings underscore the need for policy and practice changes to identify, address, and support harmed patients.
| S-EPMC7720932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionE-cigarettes are popular and unregulated. Patient-provider communications concerning e-cigarettes were characterized to identify patient concerns, provider advice and attitudes, and research needs.MethodsAn observational study of online patient-provider communications was conducted January 2011-June 2015 from a network providing free medical advice, and analyzed July 2014-May 2016. Patient and provider themes, and provider attitudes toward e-cigarettes (positive, negative, or neutral) were coded qualitatively. Provider attitudes were analyzed with cumulative logit modeling to account for clustering. Patient satisfaction with provider responses was expressed via a Thank function.ResultsAn increase in e-cigarette-related questions was observed over time. Patient questions (N=512) primarily concerned specific side effects and harms (34%); general safety (27%); e-cigarettes as quit aids (19%); comparison of e-cigarette harms relative to combusted tobacco (18%); use with pre-existing medical conditions (18%); and nicotine-free e-cigarettes (14%). Half of provider responses discussed e-cigarettes as a harm reduction option (48%); 26% discussed them as quit aids. Overall, 47% of providers' responses represented a negative attitude toward e-cigarettes; 33% were neutral (contradictory or non-committal); and 20% were positive. Attitudes did not differ statistically by medical specialty; provider responses positive toward e-cigarettes received significantly more Thanks.ConclusionsExamination of online patient-provider communications provides insight into consumer health experience with emerging alternative tobacco products. Patient concerns largely related to harms and safety, and patients preferred provider responses positively inclined toward e-cigarettes. Lacking conclusive evidence of e-cigarette safety or efficacy, healthcare providers encouraged smoking cessation and recommended first-line cessation treatment approaches.
| S-EPMC5118131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. A culture of stringent drug policy, one-size-fits-all treatment approaches, and drug-related stigma has clouded clinical HIV practice in the United States. The result is a series of missed opportunities in the HIV care environment. An approach which may address the broken relationship between patient and provider is harm reduction-which removes judgment and operates at the patient's stage of readiness. Harm reduction is not a routine part of care; rather, it exists outside clinic walls, exacerbating the divide between compassionate, stigma-free services and the medical system. Methods. Qualitative, phenomenological, semi-structured, individual interviews with patients and providers were conducted in three publicly-funded clinics in Chicago, located in areas of high HIV prevalence and drug use and serving African-American patients (N = 38). A deductive thematic analysis guided the process, including: the creation of an index code list, transcription and verification of interviews, manual coding, notation of emerging themes and refinement of code definitions, two more rounds of coding within AtlasTi, calculation of Cohen's Kappa for interrater reliability, queries of major codes and analysis of additional common themes. Results. Thematic analysis of findings indicated that the majority of patients felt receptive to harm reduction interventions (safer injection counseling, safer stimulant use counseling, overdose prevention information, supply provision) from their provider, and expressed anticipated gratitude for harm reduction information and/or supplies within the HIV care visit, although some were reluctant to talk openly about their drug use. Provider results were mixed, with more receptivity reported by advanced practice nurses, and more barriers cited by physicians. Notable barriers included: role-perceptions, limited time, inadequate training, and the patients themselves. Discussion. Patients are willing to receive harm reduction interventions from their HIV care providers, while provider receptiveness is mixed. The findings reveal critical implications for diffusion of harm reduction into HIV care, including the need to address cited barriers for both patients and providers to ensure feasibility of implementation. Strategies to address these barriers are discussed, and recommendations for further research are also shared.
| S-EPMC4841234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Effective doctor-patient communication is critical for disease management, especially when considering genetic information. We studied patient-provider communications after implementing a point-of-care pharmacogenomic results delivery system to understand whether pharmacogenomic results are discussed and whether medication recall is impacted. Outpatients undergoing preemptive pharmacogenomic testing (cases), non-genotyped controls, and study providers were surveyed from October 2012-May 2017. Patient responses were compared between visits where pharmacogenomic results guided prescribing versus visits where pharmacogenomics did not guide prescribing. Provider knowledge of pharmacogenomics, before and during study participation, was also analyzed. Both providers and case patients frequently reported discussions of genetic results after visits where pharmacogenomic information guided prescribing. Importantly, medication changes from visits where pharmacogenomics influenced prescribing were more often recalled than non-pharmacogenomic guided medication changes (OR = 3.3 [1.6-6.7], p = 0.001). Case patients who had separate visits where pharmacogenomics did and did not, respectively, influence prescribing more often remembered medication changes from visits where genomic-based guidance was used (OR = 3.4 [1.2-9.3], p = 0.02). Providers also displayed dramatic increases in personal genomic understanding through program participation (94% felt at least somewhat informed about pharmacogenomics post-participation, compared to 61% at baseline, p = 0.04). Using genomic information during prescribing increases patient-provider communications, patient medication recall, and provider understanding of genomics, important ancillary benefits to clinical use of pharmacogenomics.
| S-EPMC6980369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of the current study is to examine how nonmodifiable sociodemographic, disease, appointment, management, and survey factors correlate with provider rating. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted on 29 857 patient Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys collected from January 2017 to January 2019 at a tertiary eye center. We included surveys of patients aged 18 years or older, who answered at least 4 of 6 subfield questions, and completed the survey within 90 days of the appointment. The main outcome was the odds of receiving top box score (TBS) of 10/10 on the survey question regarding overall provider rating. The results showed that the variables with higher odds of TBS included higher overall appointment attendance (odds ratio [OR]: 2.66 [95% CI: 1.23-5.75], P = .013); older patient age (OR 2.44 [95% CI: 2.08-2.87], P < .001]; higher percentage of survey questions completed (OR: 2.02 [95% CI: 1.79-2.27], P < .001); better best corrected visual acuity (OR: 1.85 [95% CI: 1.3-2.64], P = .001); optometry clinic visit (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.15-1.36], P < .001); having procedures (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 1.04-1.36], P = .013), surgery scheduled (OR: 1.18 [95% CI: 1.03-1.36], P = .020], or refraction done (OR: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.08-1.25], P < .001); being seen by male providers (OR: 1.11 [95% CI: 1.04-1.17], P = .001); and having additional eye testing performed (OR: 1.06 [95% CI: 1.00-1.13], P = .048). Variables associated with lower odds of TBS included longer time to complete survey (OR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.3-0.58], P = .001); new patient encounter (OR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.58-0.65], P < .001); and glaucoma (OR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.59-0.75], P < .001), cornea (OR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87], P < .001), or comprehensive clinic visits (OR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.79-0.94], P < .001). Thus, nonmodifiable factors may affect the provider rating, and these factors should be studied further and accounted for when interpreting the results of patient experience surveys.
| S-EPMC8358496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTwo of the current methodological barriers to implementation science efforts are the lack of agreement regarding constructs hypothesized to affect implementation success and identifiable measures of these constructs. In order to address these gaps, the main goals of this paper were to identify a multi-level framework that captures the predominant factors that impact implementation outcomes, conduct a systematic review of available measures assessing constructs subsumed within these primary factors, and determine the criterion validity of these measures in the search articles.MethodWe conducted a systematic literature review to identify articles reporting the use or development of measures designed to assess constructs that predict the implementation of evidence-based health innovations. Articles published through 12 August 2012 were identified through MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the journal Implementation Science. We then utilized a modified five-factor framework in order to code whether each measure contained items that assess constructs representing structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level factors. Further, we coded the criterion validity of each measure within the search articles obtained.ResultsOur review identified 62 measures. Results indicate that organization, provider, and innovation-level constructs have the greatest number of measures available for use, whereas structural and patient-level constructs have the least. Additionally, relatively few measures demonstrated criterion validity, or reliable association with an implementation outcome (e.g., fidelity).DiscussionIn light of these findings, our discussion centers on strategies that researchers can utilize in order to identify, adapt, and improve extant measures for use in their own implementation research. In total, our literature review and resulting measures compendium increases the capacity of researchers to conceptualize and measure implementation-related constructs in their ongoing and future research.
| S-EPMC3598720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This investigation examined predictors of utilization of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) during a smoke-free psychiatric hospitalization.Smokers (N=324) were recruited from smoke-free adult inpatient psychiatric units. Exploratory analyses examined correlates of NRT provision and utilization.The prevalence of NRT use was 51% overall and was greater among patients offered NRT on admission (58%) versus later (34%), among patients with more severe depression and nicotine withdrawal, and among those who reported perceptions that NRT decreases nicotine withdrawal, provides a nicotine substitute, and helps with quitting smoking (p<.05, all comparisons). Although the ratio of nicotine patch dose to usual cigarettes per day was 1.2±.7, the ratio was negatively correlated with time to first cigarette (Spearman's ?=-.30, p<.01), suggesting potential underdosing of more dependent smokers.During smoke-free psychiatric hospitalizations, clinical management of nicotine withdrawal may be enhanced by offering patients NRT directly on admission, educating patients on the benefits of NRT, and increasing the dosage for more dependent smokers.
| S-EPMC5120885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeYoung cancer survivors are at increased risk for morbidities related to infection with the human papillomavirus (HPV), yet their HPV vaccine initiation rates remain low. Patient-/parent-reported lack of health care provider recommendation for HPV vaccination is strongly associated with vaccine noninitiation. We aimed to identify patient-level factors associated with survivor-/parent-reported lack of provider recommendation for HPV vaccination among young cancer survivors.MethodsCancer survivors ages 9-26 years and 1-5 years off therapy completed a cross-sectional survey (parent-completed for survivors 9-17 years of age). Lack of health care provider HPV vaccine recommendation was the outcome of interest in a multivariable logistic regression model that included relevant patient-level sociodemographic, clinical, and vaccine-related variables.ResultsOf 955 survivors, 54% were male, 66% were non-Hispanic White, and 36% had leukemia. At survey participation, survivors were an average age (± standard deviation) of 16.3 ± 4.7 years and 32.8 ± 14.7 months off therapy. Lack of provider HPV vaccine recommendation was reported by 73% (95% CI, 70% to 75%) of survivors. For the entire cohort, patient-level factors associated with lack of reported provider recommendation included perceived lack of insurance coverage for the HPV vaccine (odds ratio [OR], 4.0; 95% CI, 2.7 to 5.9; P < .001), male sex (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.9 to 4.0; P < .001), and decreased parent-survivor communication regarding HPV vaccination (OR, 1.7 per unit decrease in score; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.2; P < .001). In the sex- and age-stratified models, perceived lack of insurance coverage (all models) and male sex (age-stratified models) were also significantly associated with lack of reported provider recommendation.ConclusionWe identified factors characterizing survivors at risk for not reporting receipt of a health care provider HPV vaccine recommendation. Future research is needed to develop interventions that facilitate effective provider recommendations for HPV vaccination among all young cancer survivors.
| S-EPMC7460153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent literature describes the limits and pitfalls of using opioid pharmacotherapy for chronic pain and the importance of identifying alternatives. The objective of this study was to identify the practical issues patients and providers face when accessing alternatives to opioids, and how multiple parties view these issues.MethodsQualitative data were gathered to evaluate the outcomes of acupuncture and chiropractic (A/C) services for chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) using structured interview guides among patients with CMP (n = 90) and primary care providers (PCPs) (n = 25) purposively sampled from a managed care health care system as well as from contracted community A/C providers (n = 14). Focus groups and interviews were conducted patients with CMP with varying histories of A/C use. Plan PCPs and contracted A/C providers took part in individual interviews. All participants were asked about their experiences managing chronic pain and experience with and/or attitudes about A/C treatment. Audio recordings were transcribed and thematically coded. A summarized version of the focus group/interview guides is included in the Additional file 1.ResultsWe identified four themes around opioid use: (1) attitudes toward use of opioids to manage chronic pain; (2) the limited alternative options for chronic pain management; (3) the potential of A/C care as a tool to help manage pain; and (4) the complex system around chronic pain management. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with opioid medications for pain management, many practical barriers challenged access to other options. Most of the participants' perceived A/C care as helpful for short term pain relief. We identified that problems with timing, expectations, and plan coverage limited A/C care potential for pain relief treatment.ConclusionsThese results suggest that education about realistic expectations for chronic pain management and therapy options, as well as making A/C care more easily accessible, might lead to more satisfaction for patients and providers, and provide important input to policy makers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01345409 , date of registration 28/4/2011.
| S-EPMC5390355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RATIONALE:Strong evidence supports use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with respiratory distress from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure (strong evidence conditions [SECs]). Despite unclear benefits of NIV for other causes of acute respiratory failure, utilization for conditions with weaker evidence is increasing, despite evidence demonstrating higher mortality for patients who suffer NIV failure (progression from NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV])) compared with being treated initially with IMV. OBJECTIVES:To determine the association of hospital variation in evidence-based utilization of NIV with patient outcomes. METHODS:Using the California State Inpatient Database 2011, we identified adult patients who received NIV. Patients were considered to have an SEC for NIV if they had an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure. We used multivariable hierarchical logistic regression to determine the association between hospital rates of NIV use for SECs and patient risk of NIV failure (need for IMV after NIV). RESULTS:Among 22,706 hospitalizations with NIV as the initial ventilatory strategy, 6,820 (30.0%) had SECs. Patients with SECs had lower risk of NIV failure than patients with weak evidence conditions (8.1 vs. 18.2%, P < 0.0001). Regardless of underlying diagnosis, patients admitted to hospitals with greater use of NIV for SECs had lower risk of NIV failure (Quartile 4 vs. Quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.49-0.80). Even patients without an SEC benefited from admission to hospitals that used NIV more often for patients with SECs (Quartile 4 vs. Quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio for NIV failure = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.52-0.88). CONCLUSIONS:Most patients who received NIV did not have conditions with strong supporting evidence for its use with wide institutional variation in patient selection for NIV. Surprisingly, we found that all patients, even those without an SEC, benefited from admission to hospitals with greater evidence-based utilization of NIV, suggesting a "hospital effect" that is synergistic with patient selection.
| S-EPMC5711281 | biostudies-literature