Dataset Information

Improved health outcomes in integrative medicine visits may reflect differences in physician and patient behaviors compared to standard medical visits.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify differences in patient-physician interactions associated with improvements in GERD symptoms in a randomized controlled trial comparing integrative medicine and primary care/standard visits.

Methods

We analyzed video recordings of 2-minute excerpts (thin slices) from the beginning, middle, and end of 21 study visits (11 standard, 10 integrative medicine).

Results

According to blind coders' analysis of the excerpts, prospective improvement in GERD symptoms was most highly correlated with patients appearing pleased (r = 0.71, p < 0.01) and friendly (r = 0.67, p < 0.01) at the end of the visit, controlling for visit type. The combination of patient and physician smiling at the end of the visit was associated with improvement in GERD symptoms (r² = 0.45, p = 0.004). The physician in the integrative visits was more engaged (p = 0.009), friendly (p = 0.005), relaxed (p = 0.002), smiled longer (p = 0.006), gazed longer (p = 0.02), and gestured more (p = 0.007), compared to standard visits. Patients in integrative visits also smiled longer (p = 0.004).

Conclusion

The expanded history-taking questions asked by integrative clinicians may enhance relationship building, modifying patients' responses and improving patient-centered behaviors from clinicians,ultimately facilitating symptom improvement.

Practice implications

Analysis of nonverbal behaviors may facilitate a better understanding of patient-clinician interactions in integrative medicine visits and yield insights to improve clinical interactions in conventional medicine.

SUBMITTER: Dossett ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7855201 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPhysician notes routinely recorded during patient care represent a vast and underutilized resource for human disease studies on a population scale. Their use in research is primarily limited by the need to separate confidential patient information from clinical annotations, a process that is resource-intensive when performed manually. This study seeks to create an automated method for de-identifying physician notes that does not require large amounts of private information: in addition to training a model to recognize Protected Health Information (PHI) within private physician notes, we reverse the problem and train a model to recognize non-PHI words and phrases that appear in public medical texts.MethodsPublic and private medical text sources were analyzed to distinguish common medical words and phrases from Protected Health Information. Patient identifiers are generally nouns and numbers that appear infrequently in medical literature. To quantify this relationship, term frequencies and part of speech tags were compared between journal publications and physician notes. Standard medical concepts and phrases were then examined across ten medical dictionaries. Lists and rules were included from the US census database and previously published studies. In total, 28 features were used to train decision tree classifiers.ResultsThe model successfully recalled 98% of PHI tokens from 220 discharge summaries. Cost sensitive classification was used to weight recall over precision (98% F10 score, 76% F1 score). More than half of the false negatives were the word "of" appearing in a hospital name. All patient names, phone numbers, and home addresses were at least partially redacted. Medical concepts such as "elevated white blood cell count" were informative for de-identification. The results exceed the previously approved criteria established by four Institutional Review Boards.ConclusionsThe results indicate that distributional differences between private and public medical text can be used to accurately classify PHI. The data and algorithms reported here are made freely available for evaluation and improvement.

Project description:BackgroundA large part of the population in Germany makes use of naturopathic, complementary and integrative medical treatments. There are now numerous scientific studies that provide evidence of efficacy for certain indications. At German medical faculties, selected procedures and their application are taught within the cross-sectoral unit called QB 12 and some elective courses, with a focus on specific aspects are offered. So far, however, there has been no structured curriculum that longitudinally anchors teaching across medical studies and enables all students to consider naturopathic and complementary medical options for patient care later on and to integrate them effectively into the diagnostic and treatment process.ObjectiveThe aim of this position paper is to show the relevance of this topic for medical education, to clarify terminology and to present core competencies and possible implementation options for training.MethodThe Integrative Medicine and Perspective Pluralism Committee of the German Association for Medical Education developed this position paper in a multi-stage consensual process, in cooperation with the Forum of University Work Groups on Naturopathic Treatment and Complementary Medicine.ResultsFirst, different umbrella terms were discussed and an existing definition of integrative medicine and health was chosen for subsequent use. Building on this step, the status of education and its scientific foundation in Germany was considered in an international context. In the next step, a competency profile for medical training, consisting of seven areas of competency, was developed and described in detail with regard to naturopathic, complementary and integrative medicine. Implementation options were identified using possible starting points in the curriculum and using established examples of best practice.ConclusionDespite different priorities at each faculty, it was possible to find an agreement on the development of competencies and anchoring them in medical education on the basis of a common definition of terms. Currently, the implementation in the mandatory and elective areas is very heterogeneous. As part of the current revision of the Medical Licensure Act, there are many possible starting points for the integration of naturopathic and complementary medical teaching content, especially in interprofessional and general practice courses. The implementation and accompanying research of targeted teaching settings should lay the foundations for a long-term and binding integration into medical education. Overall, it is clear that medical education in the field of naturopathy and complementary and integrative medicine has the potential to develop comprehensive core medical competencies.

Project description:Background and objective: Integrative Medicine and Health (IMH) is a theory-based paradigm shift for health, disease and health care, which can probably only be achieved by supplementing medical roles and competences. Definition of IMH: The definitions of the Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine and Health 2015 and the so-called Berlin Agreement: Self-Responsibility and Social Action in Practicing and Fostering Integrative Medicine and Health Globally are used. The basic features of evidence-based Integrative Medicine and Health (EB-IMH) are based on the recommendations on EBM by David L. Sackett. Global State of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical Education (UG-PGME) for IMH: The USA and Canada are most advanced in the development of IMH regarding practice, teaching and research worldwide. Despite socio-cultural peculiarities, they can provide guidance for Europe and especially for Germany. Of interest here are competences for UG-PGME in IMH in primary care and in some specialist disciplines (e.g. internal medicine, gynecology, pediatrics, geriatrics, oncology, palliative care). For these specialties, the need for an interprofessional UG-PGME for IMH was shown in the early stages of development. UG-PGME for IMH in Germany: In the course of the development of the new Medical Licensure Act in Germany (ÄApprO), based on a revision of the National Competence-based Catalogue of Learning Objectives for Medicine (NKLM 2.0) and new regulations for Postgraduate Medical Education in Germany, suggestions for an extension of UG-PGME are particularly topical. To some extent there are already approaches to IMH. Old and new regulations are set out and are partly compared. As a result, some essential elements of IMH are mapped in the new ÄApprO. The new regulations for Postgraduate Medical Education do not mention IMH. Conclusion: The development of medical competences for IMH in the continuum of the UG-PGME could be supported by the coordinated introduction of appropriate entrustable professional activities (EPA) and IMH sub-competences combined with appropriate assessment.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent treatment options for chronic pain and depression are largely medication-based, which may cause adverse side effects. Integrative Medical Group Visits (IMGV) combines mindfulness techniques, evidence based integrative medicine, and medical group visits, and is a promising adjunct to medications, especially for diverse underserved patients who have limited access to non-pharmacological therapies.ObjectiveDetermine the effectiveness of IMGV compared to a Primary Care Provider (PCP) visit in patients with chronic pain and depression.Design9-week single-blind randomized control trial with a 12-week maintenance phase (intervention-medical groups; control-primary care provider visit).SettingAcademic tertiary safety-net hospital and 2 affiliated federally-qualified community health centers.Participants159 predominantly low income racially diverse adults with nonspecific chronic pain and depressive symptoms.InterventionsIMGV intervention- 9 weekly 2.5 hour in person IMGV sessions, 12 weeks on-line platform access followed by a final IMGV at 21 weeks.MeasurementsData collected at baseline, 9, and 21 weeks included primary outcomes depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire 9), pain (Brief Pain Inventory). Secondary outcomes included pain medication use and utilization.ResultsThere were no differences in pain or depression at any time point. At 9 weeks, the IMGV group had fewer emergency department visits (RR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.83) compared to controls. At 21 weeks, the IMGV group reported reduction in pain medication use (Odds Ratio: 0.42, CI: 0.18-0.98) compared to controls.LimitationsAbsence of treatment assignment concealment for patients and disproportionate group attendance in IMGV.ConclusionResults demonstrate that low-income racially diverse patients will attend medical group visits that focus on non-pharmacological techniques, however, in the attention to treat analysis there was no difference in average pain levels between the intervention and the control group.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT02262377.

Project description:ObjectivePractice arrangements in physician offices were characterised by examining the share of visits that involved physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs). The hypothesis was that collaborative practice (ie, care delivered by a dyad of physician-PA and/or physician-NP) was increasing.DesignTemporal ecological study.SettingNon-federal physician offices.ParticipantsPatient visits to a physician, PA or NP, spanning years 2007-2016.MethodsA stratified random sample of visits to office-based physicians was pooled through the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey public use linkage ﬁle. Among 317 674 visits to physicians, PAs or NPs, solo and collaborative practices were described and compared over two timespans of 2007-2011 and 2012-2016. Weighted patient visits were aggregated in bivariate analyses to achieve nationally representative estimates. Survey statistics assessed patient demographic characteristics, reason for visit and visit specialty by provider type.ResultsWithin years 2007-2011 and 2012-2016, there were 4.4 billion and 4.1 billion physician office visits (POVs), respectively. Comparing the two timespans, the rate of POVs with a solo PA (0.43% vs 0.21%) or NP (0.31% vs 0.17%) decreased. Rate of POVs with a collaborative physician-PA increased non-significantly. Rate of POVs with a collaborative physician-NP (0.49% vs 0.97%, p<0.01) increased. Overall, collaborative practice, in particular physician-NP, has increased in recent years (p<0.01), while visits handled by a solo PA or NP decreased (p<0.01). In models adjusted for patient age and chronic conditions, the odds of collaborative practice in years 2012-2016 compared with years 2007-2011 was 35% higher (95% CI 1.01 to 1.79). Furthermore, in 2012-2016, NPs provided more independent primary care, and PAs provided more independent care in a non-primary care medical specialty. Preventive visits declined among all providers.ConclusionsIn non-federal physician offices, collaborative care with a physician-PA or physician-NP appears to be a growing part of office-based healthcare delivery.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) were especially vulnerable, and modes of medical care delivery shifted rapidly. This study assessed the impact of the pandemic on care for people with ADRD, examining the use of primary, emergency, and long-term care, as well as deaths due to COVID and to other causes.MethodsAmong 4.2 million beneficiaries aged 66 and older with ADRD in traditional Medicare, monthly deaths and claims for routine care (doctors' office and telehealth visits), inpatient/emergency department (ED) visits, and long-term care facility use from March or June 2020 through December 2022 are compared to monthly rates predicted from January-December 2019 using OLS and logistic/negative binomial regression. Correlation analyses examine the association between excess deaths - due to COVID and non-COVID causes - and changes in care use in the beneficiary's state of residence.ResultsIncreased telehealth visits more than offset reduced office visits, with primary care visits increasing overall (by 9 percent from June 2020 onward relative to the predicted rate from 2019, p < .001). Emergency/inpatient visits declined (by 9 percent, p < .001) and long-term care facility use declined, remaining 14% below the 2019 trend from June 2020 onward (p < .001). Both COVID and non-COVID deaths rose, with 231,000 excess deaths (16% above the prediction from 2019), over 80 percent of which were attributable to COVID. Excess deaths were higher among women, non-White patients, those in rural and isolated zip codes, and those with higher social deprivation index scores. States with the largest increases in primary care visits had the lowest excess deaths (correlation -0.49).ConclusionsOlder adults with ADRD had substantial deaths above pre-pandemic projections during the COVID-19 pandemic, 80 percent of which were attributed to COVID-19. Routine care increased overall due to a dramatic increase in telehealth visits, but this was uneven across states, and mortality rates were significantly lower in states with higher than pre-pandemic visits.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Educational outreach visits are meant to improve the practice of health professionals by promoting face-to-face visits to deliver educational contents. They have been shown to change prescription behavior, but long-term effects are still uncertain. This trial aimed to determine if they improve family physician prescribing compared with passive guideline dissemination. METHODS:Parallel, open, superiority, and cluster-randomized trial. National Health Service primary care practices (clusters) were recruited in the Lisbon region-Portugal between March 2013 and January 2014. They could enter if they had at least four family physicians willing to participate and not planning to retire in the follow-up period. Three national guidelines were chosen for dissemination: acid secretion modifiers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antiplatelets. Physicians in the intervention group received one 15 to 20 min educational outreach visit at their workplace for each guideline. Physicians in the control group had access to guidelines through the Directorate-General for Health's website (passive dissemination). Primary outcomes were the proportion of COX-2 inhibitors prescribed within the NSAID class and the proportion of omeprazole within the PPI class at 18 months after the intervention. A cost-benefit analysis was performed. Practices were randomized by minimization. Data analyses were done at individual physician level using generalized mixed-effects regression models. Participants could not be blinded. RESULTS:Thirty-eight practices with 239 physicians were randomized (120 to intervention and 119 to control). Of 360 planned visits, 322 were delivered. No differences were found between physicians in the intervention and control groups regarding the proportion of omeprazole prescribed among PPIs 18 months after the visit (46.28 vs 47.15%, p?=?0.971) or the proportion of COX-2 inhibitors among NSAIDs (12.07 vs 13.08%, p?=?0.085). All secondary outcome comparisons showed no effect. There was no difference in cumulative drug costs at 18 months (3223.50€/1000 patients in the intervention group and 3143.92€/1000 patients in the control group, p?=?0.848). CONCLUSIONS:Educational outreach visits were unsuccessful in improving compliance with guideline recommendations among Portuguese family physicians. No effects were observed at 1, 6, and 18 months after the intervention, and there were no associated cost savings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01984034 . Registered 7 November 2013.