Debiasing effects of education about appropriate antibiotic use on consumers' preferences for physicians

A major goal of this research was to identify an antibiotic education intervention that would increase young adult consumers' preference for physicians who do not unnecessarily prescribe antibiotics for simple acute upper respiratory infections (URIs). Results clearly showed that consumers who read the CDC brochure entitled, "A New Threat to Your Health: Antibiotic Resistance" significantly preferred the physician who would not prescribe antibiotics for a URI on Day 3. They also inferred that this physician had significantly greater ability than the physician who would prescribe antibiotics. In contrast, consumers who did not read the CDC brochure significantly preferred the physician who would prescribe antibiotics for a URI on Day 3. They also inferred that this physician had significantly greater ability and greater concern for patients than the physician who would not prescribe antibiotics. Thus, consumers with low knowledge exhibited a treatment bias and preferred physicians who provided more treatment, and consumer education successfully reversed the treatment bias.     

The medical practice of patient autonomy and cancer treatment refusals: a patients' and physicians' perspective

The idea that patients should take up an autonomous position in the decision-making process is generally appreciated. However, what patient autonomy means in the case of patients who refuse a recommended oncological treatment has not been investigated. This study aims to clarify how the concept of patient autonomy can be applied to patients who refuse a recommended oncological treatment. Focus questions are: (1) what is meant by patient autonomy, i.e. how is this autonomy conceptualised and (2) which factors influence patient autonomy. A qualitative study design with in-depth interviews was performed. The study sample included 30 cancer patients and 16 physicians. All patients had refused a recommended oncological treatment. Patient autonomy was revealed to be a comprehensive concept with elaborations on 'making decisions' and 'defining life choices' as sub-concepts of patient autonomy. In contrast to what is generally believed, decisions of patients to refuse an oncological treatment do not so much rely on the medical information about disease and treatment options, but are rather inspired by patients' own experiences or those of close others. The medical information and the role of the physician do, however, influence patients' experiences of being free and/or of having a choice. The results show that the extent of pressure physicians will exert to persuade the patient to be treated as recommended depends on the medical distinction between a curative and a non-curative treatment goal. It seems that there exists a shift in respecting patient autonomy, which depends on factors like treatment goal. Discussing the respect shift may serve to clarify underlying thoughts and principles in the decision-making process for both physicians and patients.     

Patient and physician explanatory models for acute bronchitis

OBJECTIVES: Our goals were to develop explanatory models to better understand how physicians diagnose and treat acute bronchitis; to describe patient expectations and needs when experiencing an episode of acute bronchitis; and to enhance communication between physician and patient. STUDY DESIGN: We used qualitative, semi-structured, in-depth interviews to generate patient and physician explanatory models. POPULATION: We had a purposeful, homogeneous sample of 30 family physicians and 30 adult patients. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Our multidisciplinary team of investigators used an editing style of analysis to develop patient and physician explanatory models based on the following topics: (1) what caused my illness/etiology, (2) what symptoms I had/onset of symptoms, (3) what my sickness did to me/pathophysiology, (4) how severe is my sickness/course of illness, and (5) what kind of treatment should I receive/treatment. RESULTS: We found that patient and physician models were congruous for symptoms of acute bronchitis and incongruous for etiology and course of illness. Models were congruous for treatment, although for different reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Patients may have a very vague understanding of the process of infection and the difference between bacteria and viruses. Compounding this confusion is frequent miscommunication from physicians regarding the clinical course of untreated illness. These factors and non-communicated expectations from patients and fear of missing something on the part of physicians contribute to the decision to treat with antibiotics.     

Patient-physician fit: an exploratory study of a multidimensional instrument.

BACKGROUND: Patients face difficulty selecting physicians because they have little knowledge of how physicians' behaviors fit with their own preferences. OBJECTIVE: To develop scales of patient and physician behavior preferences and determine whether patient-physician fit is associated with patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Two cross-sectional surveys of patients and providers. SETTING: Ambulatory clinics at a university medical center. Participants. Eight general internists, 14 family physicians, and 193 patients. MEASUREMENTS: Two instruments were developed to measure 6 preferences for physician behaviors: 1) considering nonmedical aspects of the patient's life, 2) familiarity with herbal medicine, 3) physician decision making, 4) providing information, 5) considering the patient's religion, and 6) treating what the patient perceives as his or her problem. Patients reported how they would prefer physicians to behave, and physicians reported how they preferred to behave. Patients also rated satisfaction with their physician. RESULTS: Post hoc tests found that as a group, patients scored higher than physicians in preference for the physician to provide information and lower in preference for considering nonmedical aspects of the patient's life and religious beliefs. As hypothesized, preference differences accounted for significant variance in satisfaction in overall tests (19% in the family medicine patients and 25% in internal medicine patients). Greater satisfaction was associated with fit between patient and physician preferences for physician decision making (in the internal medicine patients) and with fit in providing information and consideration of religion (in family medicine patients) CONCLUSIONS: Patients often prefer behaviors other than how their physicians prefer to behave. Preference fit is associated with enhanced patient satisfaction. Physicians should attend to whether patients want religion and other nonmedical aspects of their lives considered. Health plans may wish to provide tools to help patients choose physicians by fit.     

Performance failure of an evidence-based upper respiratory infection clinical guideline.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated an upper respiratory infection (URI) clinical guideline to determine if it would favorably affect the quality and cost of care in a health maintenance organization. METHODS: Patients with URI symptoms contacting 4 primary care practices before and after guideline implementation were compared to ascertain what proportion of all patients with respiratory symptoms were eligible for treatment in accordance with the URI guideline; what proportion of eligible patients were managed without an office visit; and what proportion of eligible patients were treated with antibiotics, before and after guideline implementation. RESULTS: A total of 3163 patients with respiratory symptoms were identified. Of these, 59% (n = 1880) had disqualifying symptoms or comorbid conditions for URI guideline care, and 28% (n = 1290) received disqualifying diagnoses on the day of first contact, leaving 13% (n = 408) who received a diagnosis of URI and were eligible for care in accordance with the guideline. Among this group of patients, the proportion who received guideline-recommended initial telephone care was 45% preguideline and 47% postguideline (chi2 = 0.40; P = .82). Likelihood of a subsequent office visit increased from pre- to postguideline (chi2 = 17.1; P <.01), although the majority of patients had no further diagnoses other than URI. Antibiotic use for the initial URI diagnosis declined from 24% preguideline to 16% postguideline (chi2 = 3.97; P = .046), but antibiotic use during 21-day follow-up did not change (F = 0.46, P = .66). The mean cost of initial care was $37.80 preguideline and $36.20 postguideline (P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: Only 13% of primary care patients with respiratory symptoms were eligible for URI guideline care. Among eligible patients, use of the guideline failed to decrease clinic visits, decrease antibiotic use during a 21-day period, or reduce cost of care to the health plan.     

Ideal versus reality: physicians perspectives on patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and fibromyalgia

Encountering patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or fibromyalgia can cause dilemmas for physicians due to the uncertainty inherent in these illnesses. The aim of this study was to investigate: (1). How physicians in a Swedish sample describe and categorize patients with CFS and fibromyalgia; (2). What the character of CFS and fibromyalgia, with regard to diagnosing, treatment and medical knowledge/aetiology, mean to the physicians in encounters with patients; and (3). Which strategies physicians describe that they use in the encounter with these patients. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 26 physicians, specialists in various fields who all had some experience of either CFS or fibromyalgia. The results suggest that there is a discrepancy between the ideal role of the physician and reality in the everyday work in interaction with these patients. This may lead to the professional role being questioned. Different strategies are developed to handle the encounters with these patients. The results also illuminate the physician's interpretations of patients in moralising terms. Conditions given the status of illness were regarded, for example, as less serious by the physicians than those with disease status. Scepticism was expressed regarding especially CFS, but also fibromyalgia. Moreover, it is shown how the patients are characterised by the physicians as ambitious, active, illness focused, demanding and medicalising. The patient groups in question do not always gain full access to the sick-role, in part as a consequence of the conditions not being defined as diseases.     

Upper-respiratory tract complaint protocol for physician-extenders.

A protocol for upper-respiratory tract complaints was administered to 226 patients in a walk-in clinic. The protocol, for use by a physician-extender in conjunction with a physician, specified the collection of data necessary for management. A decision-making algorithm separated the major causes of upper respiratory infection (URI) complaints and led to one of four plans: a physician referral, a culture only, antibiotic treatment, or symptomatic treatment only. Each patient was seen by a physician following the health assistant's interview. Of 226 patients, 96 (42 percent) would have been sent home by the protocol without seeing the physician. None of these had a complication of URI. Sixteen (seven percent) of the 226 had serious complications - all would have been referred to the physician. The protocol proved to be safe and efficient, acceptable to patients, and a reliable approach to physician-extender management of URI.     

Patient-Centeredness as Physician Behavioral Adaptability to Patient Preferences

A physician who communicates in a patient-centered way is a physician who adapts his or her communication style to what each patient needs. In order to do so, the physician has to (1) accurately assess each patient’s states and traits (interpersonal accuracy) and (2) possess a behavioral repertoire to choose from in order to actually adapt his or her behavior to different patients (behavioral adaptability). Physician behavioral adaptability describes the change in verbal or nonverbal behavior a physician shows when interacting with patients who have different preferences in terms of how the physician should interact with them. We hypothesized that physician behavioral adaptability to their patients’ preferences would lead to better patient outcomes and that physician interpersonal accuracy was positively related to behavioral adaptability. To test these hypotheses, we recruited 61 physicians who completed an interpersonal accuracy test before being videotaped during four consultations with different patients. The 244 participating patients indicated their preferences for their physician’s interaction style prior to the consultation and filled in a consultation outcomes questionnaire directly after the consultation. We coded the physician’s verbal and nonverbal behavior for each of the consultations and compared it to the patients’ preferences to obtain a measure of physician behavioral adaptability. Results partially confirmed our hypotheses in that female physicians who adapted their nonverbal (but not their verbal) behavior had patients who reported more positive consultation outcomes. Moreover, the more female physicians were accurate interpersonally, the more they showed verbal and nonverbal behavioral adaptability. For male physicians, more interpersonal accuracy was linked to less nonverbal adaptability.     

The effect of labeling on perceived ability to recover from acute illnesses and injuries

BACKGROUND: The process of giving a patient a diagnosis may cause harm. The adverse effects of labeling, best documented for the diagnosis of hypertension, include increased absenteeism from work and lower earnings, increased depressive symptoms, and reduced quality of life. We tried to determine whether the diagnosis of hypertension affects perceptions about the time required to recover from common acute medical problems. METHODS: In an academic family practice clinic, equal numbers of patients with and without hypertension were asked to estimate how long it would take them to recover from an upper respiratory tract infection (URI), a urinary tract infection (UTI), and an ankle sprain now and 5 years ago (before the diagnosis of hypertension). RESULTS: Compared with patients who did not have hypertension, patients with hypertension estimated that it would take them twice as long, on average, to recover from a URI now (11.7 vs 6.0 days, P=.002) and in the past (10 vs 5.5 days, P=.02). These differences persisted after controlling for age, sex, race, and education. No significant differences were found for estimated recovery times for UTI or ankle sprain. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of hypertension may affect patients' perceptions of their ability to recover from unrelated acute illnesses. This may have implications for the way physicians choose to present information to patients.     

Variations in CRC Screening Practice: Would This Patient Be Screened?

PurposeScreening rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States were below the goal of 50% outlined in Healthy People 2010. Physician recommendation is an important predictor of patient compliance. We compared physician CRC screening decision processes (as depicted in decision trees) and examined how variations in decision processes affected decision outcomes. Further, we examined whether those variations could be attributed to physicians’ characteristics and guidelines’ utilization.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians, developed decision trees, compared trees, used trees to predict the recommendation for 8 sample patients, and used regression analysis to identify predictors of variation.ResultsMost of the physicians (77.3%) self-reported following clinical guidelines for CRC screening. Physicians considered an average of 5.9 decision criteria (range 2-12) in making their screening recommendations. Frequently cited criteria included patient age and family history. We documented variation for 3 of 8 sample patients. Regression analysis indicated that complexity of decision process, gender, age, and experience of physicians contributed to recommendations on screening. In addition, the self-report adherence to guidelines did not influence whether a physician would recommend CRC screening.ConclusionsThis study supports the notion that variation in practice is a function of decision processes. Therefore, studying decision processes may facilitate efforts to improve patient outcomes.     

Negotiating the diagnostic uncertainty of contested illnesses: physician practices and paradigms

In the absence of scientific consensus about contested illnesses such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS), and Gulf War Syndrome (GWS), physicians must make sense of competing accounts and develop practices for patient evaluation. A survey of 800 United States physicians examined physician propensity to diagnose CFS, MCS, and GWS, and the factors shaping clinical decision making. Results indicate that a substantial portion of physicians, including nonexperts, are diagnosing CFS, MCS, and GWS. Diagnosing physicians manage the uncertainty associated with these illnesses by using strategies that enhance bounded rationality and aid in thinking beyond current disease models. Strategies include consulting ancillary information sources, conducting analytically informed testing, and considering physiological explanations of causation. By relying on these practices and paradigms, physicians fit CFS, MCS, and GWS into an explanatory system that makes them credible and understandable to them, their patients, and the medical community. Findings suggest that physicians employ rational decision making for diagnosing contested illnesses, creating a blueprint of how illnesses lacking conclusive pathogenic and etiological explanations can be diagnosed. Findings also suggest that patients with contested illnesses might benefit from working with physicians who use these diagnostic strategies, since they help manage the complexity and ambiguity of the contested illness diagnostic process and aid in diagnosis. In addition, findings provide a window into how emerging illnesses get diagnosed in the absence of medical and scientific consensus, and suggest that diagnosing physicians advance the legitimacy of controversial illnesses by constructing the means for their diagnosis.     

Discussing spirituality with patients: a rational and ethical approach

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to determine when patients feel that physician inquiry about spirituality or religious beliefs is appropriate, reasons why they want their physicians to know about their spiritual beliefs, and what they want physicians to do with this information. METHODS: Trained research assistants administered a questionnaire to a convenience sample of consenting patients and accompanying adults in the waiting rooms of 4 family practice residency training sites and 1 private group practice in northeastern Ohio. Demographic information, the SF-12 Health Survey, and participant ratings of appropriate situations, reasons, and expectations for physician discussions of spirituality or religious beliefs were obtained. RESULTS: Of 1,413 adults who were asked to respond, 921 completed questionnaires, and 492 refused (response rate = 65%). Eighty-three percent of respondents wanted physicians to ask about spiritual beliefs in at least some circumstances. The most acceptable scenarios for spiritual discussion were life-threatening illnesses (77%), serious medical conditions (74%) and loss of loved ones (70%). Among those who wanted to discuss spirituality, the most important reason for discussion was desire for physician-patient understanding (87%). Patients believed that information concerning their spiritual beliefs would affect physicians' ability to encourage realistic hope (67%), give medical advice (66%), and change medical treatment (62%). CONCLUSIONS: This study helps clarify the nature of patient preferences for spiritual discussion with physicians.     

Does acute bronchitis really exist? A reconceptualization of acute viral respiratory infections

BACKGROUND: Considerable overlap exists in patient presentations and physical findings in viral upper respiratory tract infections (URIs) and acute bronchitis. Our goal was to determine whether there are any clinical cues that could help physicians differentiate between these 2 conditions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart audit on 135 patients who had been given a diagnosis of acute bronchitis and a random sample of 409 patients with URIs over a 2.5-year period. Patient and provider characteristics, patient symptoms, and physical findings were compared with bivariate analyses and then entered into a logistic regression model. RESULTS: In bivariate analyses, a number of demographic variables, symptoms, and signs were associated with acute bronchitis. Multivariate analysis showed that the strongest independent predictors of acute bronchitis were cough (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=21.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.01-74.26), and wheezing on examination (AOR=12.16; 95% CI, 5.39-27.42). Nausea was the strongest independent predictor that the diagnosis would not be acute bronchitis (AOR=0.01; 95% CI, 0.01-0.85). However, there was considerable overlap between the 2 conditions, and the logistic model explained only 37% of the variation between the diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: We hypothesize that sinusitis, URI, and acute bronchitis are all variations of the same clinical condition (acute respiratory infection) and should be conceptualized as a single clinical entity, with primary symptoms related to different anatomic areas rather than as different conditions.     

Reinvention of Depression Instruments by Primary Care Clinicians

PURPOSE Despite the sophisticated development of depression instruments during the past 4 decades, the critical topic of how primary care clinicians actually use those instruments in their day-to-day practice has not been investigated. We wanted to understand how primary care clinicians use depression instruments, for what purposes, and the conditions that influence their use.METHODS Grounded theory method was used to guide data collection and analysis. We conducted 70 individual interviews and 3 focus groups (n = 24) with a purposeful sample of 70 primary care clinicians (family physicians, general internists, and nurse practitioners) from 52 offices. Investigators’ field notes on office practice environments complemented individual interviews.RESULTS The clinicians described occasional use of depression instruments but reported they did not routinely use them to aid depression diagnosis or management; the clinicians reportedly used them primarily to enhance patients’ acceptance of the diagnosis when they anticipated or encountered resistance to the diagnosis. Three conditions promoted or reduced use of these instruments for different purposes: the extent of competing demands for the clinician’s time, the lack of objective evidence of depression, and the clinician’s familiarity with the patient. No differences among the 3 clinician groups were found for these 3 conditions.CONCLUSIONS Depression instruments are reinvented by primary care clinicians in their real-world primary care practice. Although depression instruments were originally conceptualized for screening, diagnosing, or facilitating the management of depression, our study suggests that the real-world practice context influences their use to aid shared decision making—primarily to suggest, tell, or convince patients to accept the diagnosis of depression.     

Predictors of differences in symptom perception of older patients and their doctors

BACKGROUND: Doctors and their older patients do not necessarily agree on what health problem ought to be treated. Discordance influences diagnostic procedures, patient satisfaction and treatment outcome negatively. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to determine the psychosocial factors influencing differences in symptom reports of patients and physicians. METHODS: A cohort study was carried out in a medical out-patient clinic. A total 141 women and 213 men agreed to give symptom reports while waiting for their doctor's appointment and allowed their treating physician to evaluate symptoms afterwards. RESULTS: Disagreement between patients and physicians on which symptoms triggered the visit appeared in one-third of the cases. This was more likely the longer symptoms existed, the less intensely patients experienced their symptom and the more restricted they felt because of the symptom. Psychosocial factors did not have a significant influence. CONCLUSIONS: Independently of psychosocial variables, the different illness concepts of patients and their treating physician influence the subject of the consultation. Doctors and patients were most likely to agree when patients reported their symptoms as being of recent onset and being intense. Symptom intensity and the associated degree of restriction seem to reflect two different conceptual dimensions of symptom evaluation.     

Providers question PROs' effectiveness. Critics contend peer review organizations are too costly and fail to improve the quality of care

The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) established physician review organizations (PROs) to ensure that Medicare recipients receive care that is medically necessary, of high quality, and provided in the appropriate setting. While arguing that oversight is necessary, many healthcare professionals believe PROs do not accomplish what they were set up to do because physicians focus on the possibility of being penalized rather than on improving patient care. PRO critics claim that the program's peer reviewers are not peers of the physician under review and that, to be effective, they should come from the same local area. They contend the best peer review is conducted within the hospital. They believe intrafacility review can be more effective at bringing about improvement because hospital peer reviewers act as supportive, nonthreatening consultants. The confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship is another issue PRO critics raise. HCFA staffers say hospitalized Medicare patients are required to sign a waiver allowing inspection of their charts, but critics counter that waivers are only for the release of records for payment claims. Changes encouraging cooperation between PROs and hospitals could improve the PRO program and enhance quality of care.