Dataset Information

A comparison of oncologist versus mental health provider attitudes towards standardized and tailored patient-reported outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used to monitor patients during treatment. Healthcare provider preferences for individualized vs. standardized PROs have been understudied.

Methods

This study surveyed oncology and mental health providers to compare attitudes towards individualized and standardized PROs. We have developed a method for individualizing PROs, called precision PROs, and the survey specifically assessed preferences for this method. We compared attitudes and preferences by provider type and by whether respondents were current or never users of PROs.

Results

Oncology providers expressed more positive attitudes for standardized PROs in treatment planning compared to mental health providers (F(1,440) = 5.978, p = 0.015). The interaction between provider type (oncology vs. mental health) and type of PRO (individualized vs. standardized) was not significant for the attitudes about the clinical utility of PROs (p = 0.709). When directly asked about the precision PRO approach, oncologists were less likely to prefer standardized items (OR = 0.478, p = 0.001) or have no preference (OR = 0.445, p = 0.007) to the precision PRO approach when compared to mental health providers. Qualitative analyses suggested standardized PROs may be simpler or easier to understand whereas individualized PROs better capture patient variability and the unique aspects of each patient's condition. Some mental health providers expressed reticence about letting patients choose how to tailor PROs. Never users of PROs reported more positive attitudes towards individualized measures than standardized measures whereas current users of PROs did not have a difference in attitudes (p = 0.010). User status was mostly unrelated to preferences.

Conclusion

Results suggest that healthcare provider preference for individualized PROs may differ by medical specialty. How PROs are tailored may need to differ by discipline. This is particularly important given that previous research showing a preference for individualized PROs over standardized was conducted with psychotherapists. Further research on patient preferences for individualized and standardized PROs is warranted as is research on the clinical utility of individualized PROs such as the precision PRO approach.

SUBMITTER: Jones SMW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8384935 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMyocardial Infarction (MI) is a leading cause of death worldwide. In high income countries, quality improvement strategies have played an important role in increasing uptake of evidence-based MI care and improving MI outcomes. The incidence of MI in sub-Saharan Africa is rising, but uptake of evidence-based care in northern Tanzania is low. There are currently no published quality improvement interventions from the region. The objective of this study was to determine provider attitudes towards a planned quality improvement intervention for MI care in northern Tanzania.MethodsThis study was conducted at a zonal referral hospital in northern Tanzania. A 41-question survey, informed by the Theoretical Framework for Acceptability, was developed by an interdisciplinary team from Tanzania and the United States. The survey, which explored provider attitudes towards MI care improvement, was administered to key provider stakeholders (physicians, nurses, and hospital administrators) using convenience sampling.ResultsA total of 140 providers were enrolled, including 82 (58.6%) nurses, 56 (40.0%) physicians, and 2 (1.4%) hospital administrators. Most participants worked in the Emergency Department or inpatient medical ward. Providers were interested in participating in a quality improvement project to improve MI care at their facility, with 139 (99.3%) strongly agreeing or agreeing with this statement. All participants agreed or strongly agreed that improvements were needed to MI care pathways at their facility. Though their facility has an MI care protocol, only 88 (62.9%) providers were aware of it. When asked which intervention would be the single-most effective strategy to improve MI care, the two most common responses were provider training (n = 66, 47.1%) and patient education (n = 41, 29.3%).ConclusionProviders in northern Tanzania reported strongly positive attitudes towards quality improvement interventions for MI care. Locally-tailored interventions to improve MI should include provider training and patient education strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous research on public stigma towards people with mental disorders has mostly targeted adult samples and focused on depression, schizophrenia or mental disorders in general. Hence, the present study aimed to investigate predictors of stigmatizing attitudes towards different mental disorders (including less researched ones) in a representative sample of adolescents and young adults. METHODS:Data from the Swiss Youth Mental Health Literacy and Stigma Survey were used (analytical sample: n = 4,932). Each participant was randomly presented with one of five vignettes (depression; alcohol abuse; depression and alcohol abuse combined; schizophrenia; social anxiety). The structure of stigmatizing attitudes was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. Regression models, implemented within a structural equation framework, were used to study predictors for the identified latent variables. RESULTS:A three-factor model for stigmatizing attitudes-consisting of 'dangerous/unpredictable', 'weak-no-sick', and 'social distance' factors-best fitted the data. Female gender was associated with less stigmatizing attitudes. Associations in opposite directions with different latent factors were found for educational and migration background. Exposure to mental disorders (being personally affected, personally having received professional help or knowing someone close who has received treatment for a mental disorder) was either not or was negatively associated with stigmatizing attitudes. In contrast, current mental health symptoms (heightened levels of psychological distress, problematic alcohol use) were generally not or were positively associated with stigmatizing attitudes. Even though the included predictors had some predictive value, the variance explained by the models was rather small (the adjusted R2 varied between 0.03 and 0.26). CONCLUSIONS:The current study indicates that contact with someone who has received treatment for a mental disorder might be an important component of programs aiming to decrease stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders, since this exposure variable predicted lower levels of stigmatizing attitudes. Furthermore, the findings suggest that target-group interventions for specific subgroups need to be considered, as the process leading to stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders appears to differ between specific sociodemographic subgroups.

Project description:Background: Medical students are reluctant to access mental health services, despite having high rates of anxiety and depression. This reluctance persists through residency and into practice. Physicians and trainees who are unwell deliver lower quality patient care, behave less professionally, communicate less effectively and are at an increased risk for burnout and suicide. Little is known about whether students would disclose a mental health diagnosis on a state board medical license application.Objectives: The objectives of this study were to determine whether University of New Mexico School of Medicine (UNM SOM) students would be willing to disclose a mental health diagnosis on a medical licensing application if prompted to do so, and, if not, to identify the reasons for their unwillingness to do so.Design: We electronically invited all UNM SOM students enrolled in the Classes of 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 to participate in a confidential RedCap survey about mental health diagnoses and treatment. Four e-mail invitations and reminders were sent to students over a one-month period.Results: Response rate was 50.1%. Thirty-six percent of all respondents considered themselves to have had a mental health condition prior to medical school, and 47% of all respondents perceived a decline in mental health during medical school. The majority of respondents who perceived they had a mental health diagnosis (51%) stated they would not disclose this information on a New Mexico Medical Board (NMMB) license application. Fear of stigmatization, fear of repercussions, and a belief that such disclosure was irrelevant were the top reasons for non-disclosure.Conclusion: Students who perceive themselves to have mental health diagnoses are unlikely to disclose their mental health status on state medical board licensing applications when asked to do so. Addressing barriers to disclosure of mental health diagnoses is necessary for building a healthier physician workforce.