scholarly journals The association between physician trust and prostate specific antigen screening: Implications for shared decision making.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 13-13
Author(s):  
Zachary William Abraham Klaassen ◽  
Christopher J.D. Wallis ◽  
Hanan Goldberg ◽  
Thenappan Chandrasekar ◽  
Neil Eric Fleshner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Cancer Information ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Physician Trust ◽  
Patient Reported

13 Background: Most cancer organizations recommend shared decision making for PSA screening, a process relying on a trusting relationship between patient and physician. The objective of this study was to assess the degree to which an individual’s trust in cancer information from their physician compared to internet-based information impacts the likelihood of receiving PSA-screening. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study (2011-2014) of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), a survey of people living in the US. The primary exposure was degree of trust in cancer information from participant’s physician (CIP). The secondary exposure was degree of trust in cancer information from the internet (CII). The primary outcome was patient-reported receipt of PSA-screening. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to identify significant trends in the primary outcome, across levels of trust. A multivariable logistic regression model assessed the association between CIP and CII with PSA-screening, adjusted for a priori covariates. Results: Among 5069 eligible respondents, 3,606 (71.1%) reported trusting CIP ‘a lot’, 1,186 (23.4%) ‘some’, 219 (4.3%) ‘a little’, and 58 (1.1%) ‘not at all’. 2,655 (52.4%) men received PSA-screening. The degree of trust in CIP was strongly associated with the likelihood of receiving PSA-screening: among men who reported ‘a lot’ of trust, 54.9% underwent screening, 48.6% ‘some’ trust, 38.4% ‘a little’ trust, and 27.6% among men ‘not at all’ trusting their physician (trend p < 0.0001). The degree to which men trusted CII was also associated with having received PSA-screening (p = 0.005), albeit with an insignificant trend (p = 0.07). After multivariable adjustment, these significant results persisted for degree of CIP trust (vs ‘a lot’: ‘some’ OR 0.80, 95%CI 0.66-0.97; ‘a little’ OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.41-0.90; ‘not at all’ OR 0.33, 95%CI 0.15-0.73), but not for trust in CII. Conclusions: The level of trust an individual has in their physician is strongly associated with undergoing PSA-screening. As rationale implementation of PSA screening requires shared decision-making, the level of physician trust has implications for dissemination of PSA-screening guidelines.

scholarly journals The association between physician trust and prostate-specific antigen screening: Implications for shared decision-making

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary Klaassen ◽  
Christopher J.D. Wallis ◽  
Hanan Goldberg ◽  
Thenappan Chandrasekar ◽  
Neil E. Fleshner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Cancer Information ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Patient Reported

Introduction: Shared decision-making is widely recommended when men are considering prostate cancer screening with prostatespecific antigen (PSA). The role of patients’ trust in cancer information from their physician in such decisions is unknown. Methods: We identified male respondents ≥18 years of age from the Health Information National Trends Survey, a population-based survey of people living in the U.S. (2011–014). We assessed the association between degree of trust in cancer information from respondent’s physician with patient-reported receipt of PSA screening and patient-reported discussion of PSA screening with their physician. Results: Among 5069 eligible respondents, 3606 (71.1%) men reported trusting cancer information from their physician “a lot,” 1186 (23.4%) “somewhat,” 219 (4.3%) “a little,” and 58 (1.1%) “not at all.” A total of 2655 (52.4%) men reported receiving PSA screening. The degree of trust an individual had in his physician for cancer information was strongly associated with his likelihood of having received PSA screening (ptrend<0.0001) (54.9% “a lot” vs. 27.6% “not at all”). These findings persisted after multivariable regression. Similarly, men who had high levels of trust in their physician were more likely to have discussed PSA screening with a strong trend across strata (ptrend<0.0001). Conclusions: The level of trust an individual has in cancer information from his physician is strongly associated with his likelihood of discussing and undergoing PSA screening. As rationale, implementation of PSA screening requires shared decision-making, and the level of trust an individual has in his physician has important implications for dissemination of PSA screening guidelines.

Does shared decision making for PSA screening empower patients?

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. e549-e549
Author(s):  
James Austin Talcott ◽  
Maureen Bezuhly ◽  
Gina Aharanoff ◽  
Jessica Herzstein ◽  
Michael P. Osborne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Screening Guideline

e549 Background: Participant characteristics affect shared decision making. In a randomized trial of physician (MD) educational interventions to improve cancer screening guideline compliance, we studied patient (PT) and MD recall of discussions and how PT characteristics affected recall. Methods: In a cluster-randomized trial of educational supports for MDs, we are enrolling an age- (30-89 years) and sex-stratified sample of 216 PTs who underwent a physical examination at two urban hospitals, 18 for each of 12 primary care MDs. Screening guideline formatting (color-coding) and academic detailing were randomly assigned in a 2x2 design. Immediate post-encounter surveys recorded PT and MD recall of screening discussions. Results: Of the first 174 participants, 92 were men. PTs were diverse (69% white) and well educated (73% college degree). When MDs reported a prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening discussion, 32% of PTs did not, and 26% of MDs disagreed when PTs reported the discussion occurred. Further, when the MD reported recommending screening, 26% of PTs disagreed, and 33% of MDs disagreed when their patients reported a recommendation. Overall, agreement between all PTs and MDs on whether screening was recommended was fair (kappa = 0.29) but there was no agreement for PTs over 70 years (kappa = -0.03). PTs reported more elements of shared decision making than MDs (data not shown). When both PT and MD or the MD alone reported that all elements of shared medical decision making had occurred, agreement on whether screening was recommended improved (kappa = 0.54 and 0.45, respectively). When PTs disagreed with their MD, they more often reported recommending for screening not against (11 vs. 4). Conclusions: In a highly educated, diverse PT population, PTs and MDs surveyed immediately after their encounter often disagreed on whether PSA screening was discussed and recommended. Disagreement was worse with older PT age but improved when both PT and MD or the MD alone reported all shared decision making elements. Clinical trial information: NCT02430948.

Prostate cancer screening patterns among LGBT populations.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19077-e19077
Author(s):  
Sung Jun Ma ◽  
Oluwadamilola Temilade Oladeru ◽  
Joseph Miccio ◽  
Katy Wang ◽  
Kristopher Attwood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Weighted Estimate ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Lgbt Populations ◽  
Do So

e19077 Background: More than 10 million Americans identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT), and the majority of male-to-female (MTF) transgender individuals still have prostates even after surgical transitions. Guidelines on prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for LGBT populations are limited, and informed and shared decision making are encouraged by various organizations. However, patterns of care for PSA screening in LGBT populations remains unclear. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a cross sectional study to evaluate self-reported PSA screening and decision making among LGBT populations. Methods: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System database was queried for LGBT adults from 2014-2016 and 2018. Those with prior prostate cancer were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association of LGBT status with PSA screening, informed and shared decision making, after adjusting for demographic characteristics and survey weights. Results: A total of 164,370 participants were eligible for PSA screening (n = 156,548 for cisgender [CG]+straight, n = 156 for MTF+straight, n = 33 for MTF+gay, n = 52 for MTF+bisexual, n = 51 for MTF+other sexual orientation [SO], n = 3354 for CG+gay, n = 1641 for CG+bisexual, n = 2535 for CG+other SO), representing a weighted estimate of 1.2 million LGBT populations. When compared to CG+straight, CG+gay/bisexual cohorts were more likely to undergo PSA screening within the past 2 years (CG+gay: OR 1.08, p < 0.001; CG+bisexual: OR 1.06, p < 0.001), have ever received PSA screening (CG+gay: OR 1.30, p < 0.001; CG+bisexual: OR 1.12, p < 0.001), and be recommended for PSA screening by their physicians (CG+gay and bisexual: OR 1.16, p < 0.001). All other cohorts were less likely to do so (all OR < 1, p < 0.05). MTF+gay and CG+gay participants were more likely to make informed decision (MTF+gay: OR 3.13, p < 0.001; CG+gay: OR 1.09, p < 0.001), while all other cohorts were less likely to do so (all OR < 1, p < 0.05). CG+gay participants were also more likely to share decision (OR 2.51, p < 0.001), while there were no associations for all other cohorts (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Select gay populations were more likely to undertake PSA screening recommended by their physicians and participate in informed and shared decision making. However, other LGBT populations were less likely to make informed decisions, and transgender participants were less likely to undergo PSA screening. Further research efforts are needed to improve informed and shared decision making for PSA screening in such underserved population.

scholarly journals MP57-02 THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PHYSICIAN TRUST AND PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN SCREENING: IMPLICATIONS FOR SHARED DECISION MAKING

2018 ◽  
Vol 199 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary Klaassen ◽  
Christopher J.D. Wallis ◽  
Hanan Goldberg ◽  
Thenappan Chandrasekar ◽  
Neil E. Fleshner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Physician Trust ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen Screening

scholarly journals Patient and physician perspectives guiding intra-articular treatment choice in knee osteoarthritis: stakeholders are aligned on treatment priorities but have different assessments of treatment effect

2021 ◽  
pp. jisakos-2020-000578
Author(s):  
Vandana Menon ◽  
Caroline Huber ◽  
Alexandria Portelli ◽  
Marissa Baker-Wagner ◽  
Scott Kelley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Needs ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Selection Factors

ObjectivesKnee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of health-related disability. In the absence of curative non-operative therapies, treatment goals are limited to symptom relief. Data are limited on how patients and physicians prioritise available treatment options. We assessed patients’ preferences for and physicians’ attitudes towards intra-articular treatments including corticosteroids (IACS), an extended-release corticosteroid (TA-ER) and hyaluronic acids (IAHA).MethodsWe conducted a prospective, IRB-exempt, double-blind survey of patients with and providers who treat knee OA. Respondents were required to have received or prescribed TA-ER in a non-trial setting. We evaluated patients’ OA history, impact of knee OA and treatment preferences, and physicians’ decision-making and prescribing experiences.ResultsOf the 97 patient participants, mean age was 56 years, 70.0% were women, 75.0% had bilateral knee OA and 46.4% were diagnosed over 5 years ago. Of the 50 physician participants, 34.0% were rheumatologists, 42.0% were orthopaedic surgeons and 60.0%, on average, treat 50+ patients with knee OA per month. Treatment selection factors considered ‘very important’ to patients and physicians included disease severity (88.7%, 82.0%), impact on quality of life (88.7%, 72.0%), disease extent (84.5%, 54.0%) and activity level (80.4%, 64.0%). A majority (93.8%) of patients indicated moderate to severe difficulty with their knees. Fewer patients (76.3%) reported shared decision making compared with physicians (92.0%). Half (50.5%) of the patients reported that they experienced months of pain relief with TA-ER, 27.7% with IACS and 18.8% with IAHA. Physician assessments were consistent but estimated a greater duration of treatment effects than that reported by patients across all therapies.ConclusionWhile knee OA has a tremendous impact on patients, there are significant unmet treatment needs. The increasing use of patient-reported outcomes will allow patients and physicians to track pain and functional status over time and across therapies, improving shared decision-making.

Co-Design of an Electronic Dashboard to Support Coproduction of Care in Pediatric Rheumatic Disease (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alysha Taxter ◽  
Lisa Johnson ◽  
Doreen Tabussi ◽  
Yukiko Kimura ◽  
Brittany Donaldson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Vertical Orientation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Data Elements ◽  
The Right

BACKGROUND Coproduction of care involves patients and families partnering with their clinicians and care teams, with the premise that each brings their own perspective, knowledge, and expertise, as well as their own values, goals, and preferences to the partnership. Dashboards can display meaningful patient and clinical data to assess how a patient is doing and inform shared decision making. Increasing communication between patients and care teams is particularly important for children with chronic conditions, such as juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), which is the most common, chronic rheumatic condition of childhood, and is associated with increased pain, decreased function, and decreased quality of life. OBJECTIVE We aimed to design a dashboard prototype for use in coproducing care for JIA patients. We evaluated the context use and needs of end users, obtained consensus on the necessary dashboard data elements, and constructed display prototypes to inform meaningful discussions for coproduction. METHODS A human-centered design approach involving parents, patients, clinicians, and care team members was used to develop a dashboard to support coproduction of care in four diverse ambulatory pediatric rheumatology clinics across the United States. We engaged a multidisciplinary team (n=18) of patients/parents, clinicians, nurses, and staff during an in-person kick-off meeting, followed by bi-weekly meetings. We also leveraged advisory panels. Teams mapped workflows and patient journeys, created personas, and developed dashboard sketches. Final necessary dashboard components were determined using Delphi consensus voting. Low-tech dashboard testing was completed during clinic visits, and visual display prototypes were iterated using PDSA methodology. Patients and providers were surveyed about their experiences. RESULTS Teams achieved consensus on what data matters most at point-of-care to support JIA patients, families, and clinicians partnering together to make the best possible decisions for better health. Notable themes included: the right data, in the right place, at the right time; data in once for multiple purposes; patient and family self-management components; and opportunity for education and increased transparency. A final set of 11 dashboard data elements were identified which include patient-reported outcomes, clinical data, and medications. Important design considerations include incorporation of real-time data, clearly labeled graphs, and vertical orientation to facilitate review and discussion. Prototype paper testing with 36 patients/families yielded positive feedback about the dashboard’s usefulness during clinic discussions, helped to talk about what mattered most, and informed healthcare decision making. CONCLUSIONS Our study developed a dashboard prototype that displays patient-reported and clinical data over time, along with medications, that can be used during a clinic visit to support meaningful conversations and shared decision making between JIA patients/families and their clinicians and care teams. CLINICALTRIAL N/A

Abstract 189: Income Level Disparities in Consumer Reported Domains of Healthcare Experience Among Those With Established Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in United States: Insights From Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2010-2013

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Okunrintemi ◽  
Erica Spatz ◽  
Joseph Salami ◽  
Paul D Capua ◽  
Haider Warraich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Expenditure Panel Survey ◽  
Medical Expenditure ◽  
Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Panel Survey ◽  
Provider Satisfaction ◽  
Healthcare Experience ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: While it is well established that significant health outcome disparities exist across patients of varying socio-economic status (SES) with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), disparities in patients’ healthcare experiences are not well investigated. We explore income level differences in four central tenets of patient-reported healthcare experience (access to care, provider communication, shared decision making and provider satisfaction) as measured by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey, in a nationally representative adult US population with established ASCVD. Methods: The study population consisted of 8223 individuals (age ≥ 18 years) representing 21.6 million with established ASCVD (self-reported or ICD-9 diagnosis) reporting a usual source of care in the 2010-2013 pooled Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) cohort. We assessed the responses for each item as: a) difficult access to care (always/almost difficult), b) ineffective communication and shared decision making (never/sometimes), and c) poor provider satisfaction (lowest quartile on a scale of 0-10). We examined the relationship between scores in the lowest quartile of each domain composite scores, derived using the weighted average response from each items scores, with patients’ SES, using the high-income group as reference. Results: Lower SES was consistently associated with greater perceived difficulties in access, poor provider-patient communication, less shared decision making, as well as lower provider satisfaction (Table). Participants classified as poor vs. high income were 47% (95% CI 1.17-1.83) more likely to report difficulty accessing care, 39% (95% CI 1.09-1.78) and 26% (95% CI 0.99-1.60) reported a higher likelihood of experiencing poor communication and shared decision making respectively, as well as a 66% (95% CI 1.31-2.11) higher likelihood of reporting lower provider satisfaction. Conclusion: Among patients with established ASCVD, significant SES disparities exist in all domains of patient reported healthcare experience quality of care metrics. Targeted policies focusing on improving communication, engagement and satisfaction are needed to enhance patient healthcare experience among high-risk vulnerable populations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document