Decision or no decision: how do patient-physician interactions end and what matters?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tai-Seale M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1824767 | biostudies-other | 2007 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Patients engaging in shared decision making must weigh the likelihood of positive and negative outcomes and deal with uncertainty and negative emotions in the situations where desirable options might not be available. The use of "nudges," or communication techniques that influence patients' choices in a predictable direction, may assist patients in making complex decisions. However, nudging patients may be perceived as inappropriate influence on patients' choices. We sought to determine whether key stakeholders, physicians, and laypersons without clinical training consider the use of nudges to be ethical and appropriate in medical decision making. Eighty-nine resident-physicians and 336 Mechanical-Turk workers (i.e., non-clinicians) evaluated two hypothetical preference-sensitive situations, in which a patient with advanced cancer chooses between chemotherapy and hospice care. We varied the following: (1) whether or not the patient's decision was influenced by a mistaken judgment (i.e., decision-making bias) and (2) whether or not the physician used a nudge. Each participant reported the extent to which the communication was ethical, appropriate, and desirable. Both physicians and non-clinicians considered using nudges more positively than not using them, regardless of an initial decision-making bias in patients' considerations. Decomposing this effect, we found that physicians viewed the nudge that endorsed hospice care more favorably than the nudge that endorsed chemotherapy, while non-clinicians viewed the nudge that endorsed chemotherapy more favorably than the nudge that endorsed hospice care. We discuss implications and propose exploring further physicians' and patients' differences in the perception of nudges; the differences may suggest limitations for using nudges in medical decisions.
| S-EPMC6145510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFollowing passage of the Patient Self Determination Act in 1990, health care institutions that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding are required to inform patients of their right to make their health care preferences known through execution of a living will and/or to appoint a surrogate-decision maker. We evaluated the impact of external factors and perceived patient preferences on physicians' decisions to honor or forgo previously established advance directives (ADs). In addition, physician views regarding legal risk, patients' ability to comprehend complexities involved with their care, and impact of medical costs related to end-of-life care decisions were explored.MethodsAttendees of two Mayo Clinic continuing medical education courses were surveyed. Three scenarios based in part on previously court-litigated matters assessed impact of external factors and perceived patient preferences on physician compliance with patient-articulated wishes regarding resuscitation. General questions measured respondents' perception of legal risk, concerns over patient knowledge of idiosyncrasies involved with their care, and impact medical costs may have on compliance with patient preferences. Responses indicating strength of agreement or disagreement with statements were treated as ordinal data and analyzed using the Cochran Armitage trend test.ResultsThree hundred eighty-eight of 951 surveys were completed (41% response rate). Eighty percent reported they were likely to honor a patient's AD despite its 5 year age. Fewer than half (41%) would honor the AD of a patient in ventricular fibrillation who had expressed a desire to "pass away in peace." Few (17%) would forgo an AD following a family's request for continued resuscitative treatment. A majority (52%) considered risk of liability to be lower when maintaining someone alive against their wishes than mistakenly failing to provide resuscitative efforts. A large percentage (74%) disagreed that patients could not appreciate complexities surrounding their care while 69% agreed that costs should never impact a physician's decision as to whether to comply with a patient's AD.ConclusionsOur findings highlight the impact, albeit small, external factors have on physician AD compliance. Most respondents based their decision on the clinical situation at hand and interpretation of the patient's initial wishes and preferences expressed by the AD.
| S-EPMC3528447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:CONTEXT:Although patient and physician characteristics are thought to be predictive of discretionary interventions at the end of life (EoL), few studies have data on both parties. OBJECTIVE:To test the hypothesis that patient preferences and physician attitudes are both independently associated with discretionary interventions at the EoL. METHODS:We report secondary analyses of data collected prospectively from physicians (n = 38) and patients with advanced cancer (n = 265) in the Values and Options in Cancer Care study. Predictor variables were patient attitudes toward EoL care and physician-reported comfort with medical paternalism, assessed indirectly using a modified version of the Control Preference Scale. We explored whether the magnitude of the physician variable was influenced by the inclusion of particular patient treatment-preference variables (i.e., effect modification). Outcomes were a chemotherapy use score (?14 days before death [scored 2], 15-31 days before death [scored 1], and >31 days [scored 0]) and an emergency department visit/inpatient admission score (two or more admissions in the last 31 days [scored 2], one admission [1], and 0 admissions [0]) in the last month of life. RESULTS:Chemotherapy scores were nearly 0.25 points higher if patients expressed a preference for experimental treatments with unknown benefit at study entry (0.238 points, 95% CI = 0.047-0.429) or reported an unfavorable attitude toward palliative care (0.247 points, 95% CI = 0.047-0.450). A two-standard deviation difference in physician comfort with medical paternalism corresponded to standardized effects of 0.35 (95% CI = 0.03-0.66) for chemotherapy and 0.33 (95% CI = 0.04-0.61) for emergency department visits/inpatient admissions. There was no evidence of effect modification. CONCLUSION:Patient treatment preferences and physician attitudes are independently associated with higher levels of treatment intensity before death. Greater research, clinical, and policy attention to patient treatment preferences and physician comfort with medical paternalism might lead to improvements in care of patients with advanced disease.
| S-EPMC6679778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionA risk calculator paired with a personalized decision aid (RC&DA) may foster shared decision-making in primary care. We assessed the feasibility of using an RC&DA with patients in a primary care outpatient clinic and patients' experiences regarding communication and decision-making.MethodsThis pilot study was conducted with 15 patients of 3 primary care physicians at a clinic within a tertiary medical center. An atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator was used to generate a personalized RC&DA that displayed absolute 10-year risk information as an icon array graphic. Patient perceptions of utility of the RC&DA, preferences for decision-making, and uncertainty with risk reduction decisions were measured with a semi-structured interview.ResultsPatients reported that the RC&DA was easy to understand and knowledge gained was useful to modify their ASCVD risk. Patients used the RC&DA to make decisions and reported low uncertainty with those decisions.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate the feasibility of, and positive patient experiences related to using, an RC&DA to facilitate shared decision-making between physicians and patients in an outpatient primary care setting.
| S-EPMC6134541 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe ultimate goal of any prescribed medical therapy is to achieve desired outcomes of patient care. However, patient nonadherence has long been a major problem detrimental to patient health and, thus, is a concern for all health care providers. Moreover, nonadherence is extremely costly for global medical systems because of unnecessary complications and expenses. Traditional patient education programs often serve as an intervention tool to increase patients' self-care awareness, disease knowledge, and motivation to change patient behaviors for better adherence. Patient trust in physicians, patient-physician relationships, and quality of communication have also been identified as critical factors influencing patient adherence. However, little is known about how mobile patient education technologies help foster patient adherence.ObjectiveThis study aimed to empirically investigate whether and how a mobile patient education system (MPES) juxtaposed with patient trust can increase patient adherence to prescribed medical therapies.MethodsThis study was conducted based on a field survey of 125 patients in multiple states in the United States who have used an innovative mobile health care system for their health care education and information seeking. Partial least squares techniques were used to analyze the collected data.ResultsThe results revealed that patient-physician communication and the use of an MPES significantly increase patients' trust in their physicians. Furthermore, patient trust has a prominent effect on patient attitude toward treatment adherence, which in turn influences patients' behavioral intention and actual adherence behavior. Based on the theory of planned behavior, the results also indicated that behavioral intention, response efficacy, and self-efficacy positively influenced patients' actual treatment adherence behavior, whereas descriptive norms and subjective norms do not play a role in this process.ConclusionsOur study is one of the first that examines the relationship between patients who actively use an MPES and their trust in their physicians. This study contributes to this context by enriching the trust literature, addressing the call to identify key patient-centered technology determinants of trust, advancing the understanding of patient adherence mechanisms, adding a new explanation of the influence of education mechanisms delivered via mobile devices on patient adherence, and confirming that the theory of planned behavior holds in this patient adherence context.
| S-EPMC9776535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTreatment decisions in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are challenging, particularly for those who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy (IC), and the trade-offs patients, their families and physicians consider when choosing a treatment option are not well understood. This qualitative research explored the value of extending survival and the treatment decision-making process from a multi-stakeholder perspective.MethodsOverall, 28 patients with AML (≥ 65 years old, unsuitable for IC), 25 of their relatives and 10 independent physicians from the US, UK and Canada took part in one-on-one, 60-minute qualitative interviews.ResultsAcross all stakeholders, improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL), extended survival and relief of AML symptoms were recognized as most important in AML treatment decision-making. However, extending survival in 'good health' was more important than extending survival alone, particularly because of the extra time it gives patients and their relatives together, and allows patients to achieve important goals. Patients' limited understanding of available treatment options, paired with incorrect perceptions of treatment side effects, impacted their involvement in the treatment decision-making process. Patients and physicians perceived physicians to have the most influence in the decision-making process despite their priorities not always aligning.ConclusionThese findings illustrate the importance of having structured discussions which explicitly assess patients' goals and their understanding and expectations of treatments and also the need for patient friendly resources about the lived experience of AML and available treatment options. These measures will help to ensure that patients are fully involved in the shared decision-making process.
| S-EPMC9189260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGoal attainment of guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is suboptimal. Little is known about how patient factors influence physicians' treatment decision-making in hypercholesterolemia. We examined physicians' treatment recommendations in high-risk patients whose LDL-C remained uncontrolled despite statin monotherapy.MethodsPhysicians completed a questionnaire prior to randomization into period I of a two-period randomized controlled trial evaluating LDL-C goal attainment in patients whose LDL-C remained ≥100 mg/dL after 5 weeks' treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg/day (NCT01154036). Physicians' treatment recommendations were surveyed for two hypothetical and one real scenario: (1) LDL-C presumed near goal (between 100-105 mg/dL), (2) LDL-C presumed far from goal (~120 mg/dL), and (3) observed baseline LDL-C of enrolled patients. Prognostic factors considered during decision-making were identified by regression analysis. Observed lipid outcomes at the end of period I (following 6 weeks' treatment with ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, or rosuvastatin 10 mg) were compared with estimated LDL-C outcomes for physicians' treatment recommendations after 6 weeks (based on individual patients' pre-randomization LDL-C and expected incremental change).ResultsQuestionnaires were completed for 1,534 patients. No change in therapy, or double atorvastatin dose, were frequently recommended, even when LDL-C was far from goal (6.5% and 52.2% of patients, respectively). Double atorvastatin dose was commonly recommended in all scenarios (43-52% of patients). More intensive LDL-C-lowering regimens were recommended infrequently e.g. double atorvastatin dose and add ezetimibe only <12% in all scenarios. Overall, cardiovascular risk factors and desire to achieve a more aggressive LDL-C goal were prominent factors in decision-making for treatment. Comparison of observed and estimated LDL-C levels showed that physicians tended to overestimate the effectiveness of their recommendations.ConclusionsThis study provides insight into physicians' perspectives on clinical management of hypercholesterolemia and highlights a gap in knowledge translation from guidelines to clinical practice. The need for lower LDL-C and cardiovascular risk were key drivers in clinical decision-making, but physicians' treatment choices were more conservative than guideline recommendations, potentially resulting in poorer LDL-C reduction. When compared with actual outcomes, projected LDL-C control was better if physicians used more comprehensive strategies rather than simply doubling the statin dose.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01154036.
| S-EPMC4457981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal ultrasound improves the accuracy of detecting the level of disease activity (DA) in RA patients, although its impact on the final treatment decision in a real clinical setting is uncertain. The objectives were to define the percentage of clinical scenarios from an ongoing cohort of RA outpatients in which the German Ultrasound Score on 7 joints (GUS-7) impacted the treatment and to explore if the impact differed between a senior rheumatologist (SR) vs. a trainee (TR).MethodsEighty-five consecutive and randomly selected RA outpatients underwent 170 assessments, 85 each by the SR and the TR. Initially, both physicians (blinded to each other) performed a rheumatic assessment and recommended a preliminary treatment. Then, the patients underwent the GUS-7 evaluation by an experienced rheumatologist blinded to clinical evaluations; selected joints of the clinically dominant hand were assessed by gray-scale and power Doppler (PD). In the final step, the TR and the SR integrated the GUS-7 findings with their previous evaluation and reviewed their recommendations. The patients received the final recommendation from the SR to avoid patient confusion. The study was approved by the Internal Review Board and all the patients signed informed consent. GUS-7 usefulness was separately evaluated by the SR and the TR according to a visual analogue scale (0 = not useful at all, 10 = very useful). Descriptive statistics were used.ResultsThe patients were primarily middle-aged females (91.4%) with (mean ± SD) disease duration of 7.5 ± 3.9 years. The majority of them (69.2% according to TR and 71.8% to SR) were in DAS28-ESR-remission. In 34 of 170 clinical scenarios (20%), the GUS-7 findings modified the final treatment proposal; 24 of these scenarios were determined by the TR vs. 10 by the SR: 70.5% vs. 29.5%, p = 0.01. Treatment changes (increase, decrease and joint injection) were similar between both specialists. As expected, the TR rated the GUS-7 usefulness higher than the SR, particularly in the clinical scenarios where the GUS-7 findings impacted treatment.ConclusionsMusculoskeletal ultrasound added to standard rheumatic assessments impacted the treatment proposal in a limited number of patients; the impact was greater in the TR.
| S-EPMC5594469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGout treatment is not optimized globally, often due to therapeutic inertia by physicians or poor adherence to urate-lowering medications by patients. A patient decision aid (PDA) to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) in gout treatment may overcome these physician-patient barriers.ObjectiveThe study explored the views of physicians and patients on a novel locally designed gout treatment PDA prototype.DesignQualitative descriptive design was used to gather data from in-depth-interviews (IDI) and focus group discussions (FGD). Data analysis was via thematic analysis. Emergent themes shaped a revised version of the PDA.Setting and participantsAdult Asian patients with recent acute gout exacerbations and local Primary Care Physicians (PCP) in Singapore were purposefully chosen. 15 patients with gout and 11 PCPs participated across three IDIs and six FGDs, with the investigators exploring their views of a prototype gout treatment PDA.ResultsPatients and physicians generally concurred with the content and design of the PDA prototype. However, while patients preferred fewer treatment details, the PCPs desired more information. Patients preferred the display of statistics, while PCPs felt that numbers were not relevant to patients. The latter were hesitant to include treatment options that were unavailable in primary care. Both stakeholders indicated that they would use the PDA during a consultation. PCPs would need further training in SDM, given a lack of understanding of it.Conclusion and patient contributionPatients will be the prime users of the PDA. While their views differed partially from the physicians, both have jointly developed the novel gout treatment PDA.
| S-EPMC8077153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe use of patient race in medicine is controversial for its potential either to exacerbate or address health disparities. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have emerged as a tool for risk stratification models used in preventive medicine. We examined whether PRS results affect primary care physician (PCP) medical decision-making and whether that effect varies by patient race.MethodsUsing an online survey with a randomized experimental design among PCPs in a national database, we ascertained decision-making around atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention and prostate cancer screening for case scenario patients who were clinically identical except for randomized reported race.ResultsAcross 369 PCPs (email open rate = 10.8%, partial completion rate = 93.7%), recommendations varied with PRS results in expected directions (low-risk results, no available PRS results, and high-risk results). Still, physicians randomized to scenarios with Black patients were more likely to recommend statin therapy than those randomized to scenarios with White patients (odds ratio = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.16-2.59, P = .007) despite otherwise identical clinical profiles and independent of PRS results. Similarly, physicians were more likely to recommend prostate cancer screening for Black patients than for White patients (odds ratio = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.06-2.35, P = .025) despite otherwise identical clinical and genetic profiles.ConclusionDespite advances in precision risk stratification, physicians will likely continue to use patient race implicitly or explicitly in medical decision-making.
| S-EPMC10085844 | biostudies-literature