Dataset Information

Shared Decisions: A Qualitative Study on Clinician and Patient Perspectives on Statin Therapy and Statin-Associated Side Effects.

ABSTRACT: Background Despite guideline recommendations and clinical trial data suggesting benefit, statin therapy use in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains suboptimal. The aim of this study was to understand clinician and patient views on statin therapy, statin-associated side effects (SASEs), SASE management, and communication around statin risks and benefits. Methods and Results We conducted qualitative interviews of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who had SASEs (n=17) and clinicians who regularly prescribe statins (n=20). We used directed content analysis, facilitated by Atlas.ti software, to develop and revise codebooks for clinician and patient interviews. The most relevant codes were "pile sorted" into 5 main topic domains: (1) SASEs vary in severity, duration, and time of onset; (2) communication practices by clinicians around statins and SASEs are variable and impacted by clinician time limitations and patient preconceived notions of SASEs; (3) although a "trial and error" approach to managing SASEs may be effective in allowing clinicians to keep patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on a statin, it can be frustrating for patients; (4) outside sources, such as the media, internet, social networks, and social circles, influence patients' perceptions and often impact the risk benefit discussion; and (5) a decision aid would be beneficial in facilitating clinician decision-making around SASEs and discussion of SASEs with the patients. Conclusions Statin use among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains suboptimal because of various patient- and clinician-related factors. The development of a decision aid to facilitate discussion of SASEs, clinician decision-making, and SASE management may improve statin use in this high-risk population.

SUBMITTER: Ahmed ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7763718 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Shared Decisions: A Qualitative Study on Clinician and Patient Perspectives on Statin Therapy and Statin-Associated Side Effects.

Ahmed Sarah T ST Ahmed Sarah T ST Akeroyd Julia M JM Mahtta Dhruv D Street Richard R Slagle Jason J Navar Ann Marie AM Stone Neil J NJ Ballantyne Christie M CM Petersen Laura A LA Virani Salim S SS

Journal of the American Heart Association 20201110 22

Background Despite guideline recommendations and clinical trial data suggesting benefit, statin therapy use in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains suboptimal. The aim of this study was to understand clinician and patient views on statin therapy, statin-associated side effects (SASEs), SASE management, and communication around statin risks and benefits. Methods and Results We conducted qualitative interviews of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who had ...[more]

PMID: 33170055

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE:To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. DESIGN:Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS:We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). APPROACH:Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. KEY RESULTS:Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.

Project description:BackgroundIn the incidental pulmonary nodule and breast cancer screening settings, high-quality patient-centered communication can improve adherence to evaluation and mitigate patient distress. Although guidelines emphasize shared decision-making before lung cancer screening, little is known about patient-clinician communication after lung cancer screening.Research questionHow do patients and clinicians perceive communication and results notification after lung cancer screening, and are there approaches that may mitigate or exacerbate distress?Study design and methodsWe conducted interviews and focus groups with 49 patients who underwent lung cancer screening in the prior year and 36 clinicians who communicate screening results (primary care providers, pulmonologists, nurses), recruited from lung cancer screening programs at 4 hospitals. We analyzed transcripts using conventional content analysis.ResultsClinicians and patients diverged in their impressions of the quality of communication after lung cancer screening. Clinicians recognized the potential for patient distress and tailored their approach to disclosure based on how clinically concerning they perceived results to be. Disclosure of normal or low-risk findings usually occurred by letter; clinicians believed this process was efficient and well received by patients. Yet many patients were dissatisfied: several could not recall receiving results at all, and others reported that receiving results by letter left them confused and concerned, with little opportunity to ask questions. By contrast, patients with larger nodules typically received results during an immediate phone call or clinic visit, and both patients and clinicians agreed that these conversations represented high-quality communication that met patient needs. Regardless of their cancer risk, patients who learned their results in a conversation appreciated the opportunity to discuss both the meaning of the nodule and the evaluation plan, and to have their concerns addressed, preempting distress.InterpretationTension exists between clinicians' interest in efficiency of results notification by letter in low-risk cases and patients' need to understand and be reassured about screening results, their implications, and the plan for subsequent screening or nodule evaluation-even when clinicians did not perceive results as concerning. Brief conversations to discuss lung cancer screening results may improve patient understanding and satisfaction while reducing distress.

Project description:Background and aimsPatient-centered care (PCC) benefits patients, health-care providers, and health-care systems by providing delivery of care that addresses patient values and needs while improving provider experiences, and by decreasing health-care expenditure. To improve PCC, health-care systems need to measure it. Recently, we developed a PCC framework that is evidence based and patient informed. The purpose of this study was to gather the perspective of clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts regarding the PCC domains included in the framework. Their perspectives were used to refine these domains, which ultimately will inform the development of PCC quality indicators.MethodsParticipants were recruited via expert and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom from October 2017 to January 2018. With the use of an interview guide developed using the PCC framework, interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for a thematic analysis using NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes.ResultsSixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted, which included four clinician-scientists and 12 quality improvement experts. Twelve of the participants were from Canada, three from the United Kingdom, and one from the United States. From the thematic analysis, three major themes were identified: (a) measurability of PCC, (b) practical considerations for implementing measurement, and (c) policy and practice implications. Participants discussed barriers and recommendations to improve and increase the clarity of the PCC domains in health system reporting, resulting in several future directions to refine and target specific PCC domains.ConclusionClinician-scientists and quality improvement experts provided key recommendations for the measurement of PCC. The perspectives of key stakeholders in PCC measurement will inform strategies for the implementation and uptake of patient-centered quality indicators in health-care systems. The views of these key experts can lay the foundation for the development of standardized measures of PCC, to ensure monitoring and improvement of PCC.

Project description:ObjectiveApproximately fifteen million women in the United States live > 50 miles from a gynecologic oncologist. Telemedical technology allows patients' local physicians to consult with subspecialist gynecologic oncologists without burdening patients with unnecessary in-person visits. Although critical to adoption of this technology, physicians' input into implementation of clinician-to-clinician consultation has not been sought. We therefore gathered feedback about experiences with referrals, communication, and openness to telemedical consultation from gynecologic oncologists, gynecologists, and medical oncologists.MethodsWe recruited gynecologic oncologists, gynecologists, and medical oncologists from practices serving rural patients to participate in semi-structured interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework guided the interviews. Questions focused on factors influencing adoption and implementation of clinician-to-clinician telemedicine. Interviews were conducted via WebEx, recorded, and transcribed. Two investigators coded interviews using the combined frameworks and identified salient themes.ResultsWe conducted 11 interviews (6 gynecologic oncologists, 3 gynecologists, 2 medical oncologists) and identified themes encompassing communication burnout, barriers to sharing patient information, need for further logistical information, and potential benefits to patients.ConclusionsClinician-to-clinician telemedicine may improve access to gynecologic cancer care by decreasing barriers to subspecialty expertise while simultaneously benefiting referring and consultant clinicians through improved identification and workup of patients who may need in-person consultation. To optimize desired outcomes, telemedical consultation must allow for communication of relevant patient information and records and easy integration into clinical workflow. Importantly, clinicians must perceive the consultation as improving patients' access to specialty care.

Project description:ImportanceUS residents report broad access to firearms, which are the most common means of suicide death in the US. Standardized firearm access questions during routine health care encounters are uncommon despite potential benefits for suicide prevention.ObjectiveTo explore patient and clinician experiences with a standard question about firearm access on a self-administered mental health questionnaire routinely used prior to primary care and mental health specialty encounters.Design, setting, and participantsQualitative semistructured interviews were conducted from November 18, 2019, to October 8, 2020, at Kaiser Permanente Washington, a large integrated care delivery system and insurance provider. Electronic health record data identified adult patients with a documented mental health diagnosis who had received a standard question about firearm access ("Do you have access to guns? yes/no") within the prior 2 weeks. A stratified sampling distribution selected 30% who answered "yes," 30% who answered "no," and 40% who left the question blank. Two groups of clinicians responsible for safety planning with patients at risk of suicide were also sampled: (1) licensed clinical social workers (LICSWs) in primary and urgent care settings and (2) consulting nurses (RNs).Main outcomes and measuresParticipants completed semistructured telephone interviews, which were recorded and transcribed. Directive (deductive) and conventional (inductive) content analyses were used to apply knowledge from prior research and describe new information. Thematic analysis was used to organize key content, and triangulation was used to describe the intersections between patient and clinician perspectives.ResultsThirty-six patients were interviewed (of 76 sampled; mean [SD] age, 47.3 [17.9] years; 19 [53%] were male; 27 [75%] were White; 3 [8%] were Black; and 1 [3%] was Latinx or Hispanic. Sixteen participants had reported firearm access and 15 had reported thoughts of self-harm on the questionnaire used for sampling. Thirty clinicians were interviewed (of 51 sampled) (mean [SD] age, 44.3 [12.1] years; 24 [80%] were female; 18 [60%] were White; 5 [17%] were Asian or Pacific Islander; and 4 [13%] were Latinx or Hispanic) including 25 LICSWs and 5 RNs. Key organizing themes included perceived value of standardized questions about firearm access, challenges of asking and answering, and considerations for practice improvement. Clinician interview themes largely converged and/or complemented patient interviews.Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study using semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians, a standardized question about firearm access was found to encourage dialogue about firearm access. Respondents underscored the importance of nonjudgmental acknowledgment of patients' reasons for firearm access as key to patient-centered practice improvement.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aims to explore how patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) experience the adverse effects of treatment, as expressed by the individuals themselves.MethodsA qualitative, phenomenological and hermeneutic design was applied. Twenty patients with metastatic GIST participated in the study. In-depth and semi-structured interviews were conducted and then analysed by means of an inductive thematic analysis.ResultsThe majority of participants reported experiencing a changed life after being diagnosed with metastatic GIST and commencing systemic medical treatment. More than half of them described partially debilitating self-reported side effects and complaints that had a detrimental impact on their lives. The life-prolonging tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment prompted the participants to adapt to 'a new normal'. Several participants also emphasised having an ambivalent relationship with the pill, although most looked upon it as 'a friend' because it kept them alive. Paradoxically, while the participants struggled with the side effects of treatment as well as the consequences of living with a chronic cancer, half of them considered themselves to be healthy and, thus, to not actually be cancer patients.ConclusionsWe observed a gap between the biomedical perspective on disease that health professionals typically adopt and the individual experiences of patients living with metastatic GIST. For those patients who are living in limbo between having metastatic cancer and offered an effective treatment, a holistic view of health on the part of their healthcare providers seems crucial. A vital goal should hence be to improve communication between healthcare professionals and GIST patients so as to secure an individualised follow-up with guidance on coping with, and adapting to, their new normal.Trial registration The study was approved by the data protection officer of the Oslo University Hospital (Approval Number 2016/15358).

Dataset Information

Shared Decisions: A Qualitative Study on Clinician and Patient Perspectives on Statin Therapy and Statin-Associated Side Effects.

Publications

Shared Decisions: A Qualitative Study on Clinician and Patient Perspectives on Statin Therapy and Statin-Associated Side Effects.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets