Free access

Research Article

28 February 2017

Factors influencing patients’ receptiveness to evidence-based recommendations during the clinical encounter

Authors: Cara Stepanczuk [email protected], Nyna Williams, Katie Morrison, and Charlene KemmererAuthor Info & Affiliations

Publication: J. Comp. Eff. Res.

Volume 6, Number 4

https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2016-0077

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Aim: To identify the factors that promote or interfere with evidence-based clinical decisions from the patient perspective. Materials & methods: We developed four hypothetical scenarios with clinical decisions, such as whether to pursue testing for a chronic condition. We conducted eight focus groups to better understand the influences on individuals' decisions in the context of the scenarios. Results: A patient's relationship with a physician emerged as the strongest influence on whether participants would accept or reject a physician's recommendation. Various patient characteristics and a patient's financial capacity were also important influences. Conclusion: Our findings point to the potential for interventions that improve communications and relationships between physicians and patients to promote evidence-based care.

Supplementary Material

File (suppl_data.docx)

Download
38.17 KB

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

1.

Squires D. Explaining high health care spending in the United States: an international comparison of supply, utilization, prices, and quality. The Commonwealth Fund, Washington, DC, USA (2012). www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2012/may/high-health-care-spending

2.

Schwartz AL, Landon BE, Elshaug AG, Chernew ME, McWilliams JM. Measuring low-value care in medicare. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 174(7), 1067–1076 (2014).

3.

McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofara A. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 348(26), 2635–2645 (2003).

4.

O'Malley AS, Collins A, Contreary K, Rich EC. Barriers to and facilitators of specialist physician decision making at the point of care: implications for delivery systems, payers and policymakers. MDM Policy and Practice (2016) (Epub ahead of print).

• A companion piece to this manuscript, which examines physicians' perspectives on factors that support or hinder evidence-based decisions and the implications for delivery systems, payers and policymakers.

5.

Lin GA, Redberg RF. Addressing overuse of medical services one decision at a time. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 175(7), 1092–1093 (2015).

6.

Newhouse JP, Garberg AM, Graham RP, McCoy MA, Mancher M, Kibria A. Variation in Health Care Spending: Target Decision Making, Not Geography. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA (2013).

7.

Anderson M, Dobkin C, Gross T. The effect of health insurance coverage on the use of medical services. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Pol. 4(1), 1–27 (2012).

8.

Hofer A, Abraham JM, Moscovice I. Expansion of coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and primary care utilization. Millbank Quart. 89(1), 69–89 (2011).

9.

Schram A, Sonnemans J. How individuals choose health insurance: an experimental analysis. Euro. Econ. Rev. 55(6), 799–819 (2011).

10.

Asche C, LaFleur J, Conner C. A review of diabetes treatment adherence and the association with clinical and economic outcomes. Pharm. Econ. Health Pol. 33(1), 74–109 (2011).

11.

Thompson L, McCabe R. The effect of clinician–patient alliance and communication on treatment adherence in mental health care: a systematic review. BMC Psych. 87(12), (2012) (Epub ahead of print).

12.

Collins A, Stepanczuk C, Williams SS, Rich EC. Supporting better patient decisions at the point of care: what payers and delivery systems can do. Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, DC, USA (2016).

• A companion piece to this manuscript, which highlights opportunities for payers and healthcare delivery organizations to support patients in typical point-of-care situations, including value-based insurance design, informed decision-making tools, revised provider incentives and improved physician communication.

13.

American College of Surgeons. Don't do computed tomography (CT) for the evaluation of suspected appendicitis in children until after ultrasound has been considered as an option. ABIM Foundation, Philadelphia, PA, USA (2013). www.choosingwisely.org/clinician-lists/american-college-surgeons-computed-tomography-to-evaluate-appendicitis-in-children/

14.

Consumer Reports. Imaging tests after a heart procedure. ABIM Foundation, Philadelphia, PA, USA (2012).

15.

Consumer Reports. Treating blocked leg arteries. ABIM Foundation, Philadelphia, PA, USA (2013).

16.

Consumer Reports. Treating heartburn and GERD. ABIM Foundation, Philadelphia, PA, USA (2012).

17.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 19(6), 349–357 (2007).

18.

Hall MA, Dugan E, Zheng B, Mishra AK. Trust in physicians and medical institutions: what is it, can it be measured, and does it matter? Millbank Quart. 79(4), 613–639 (2001).

•• Seminal review of research on patients' trust that highlights opportunities for payers and healthcare delivery organizations to support patients in typical point-of-care situations, including value-based insurance design, informed decision-making tools, revised provider incentives and improved physician communication.

19.

Orom H, Underwood W 3rd, Cheng Z, Homish DL, Scott I. Relationships as medicine: quality of the physician–patient relationship determines physician influence on treatment recommendation adherence. Health Serv. Res. (2016) (Epub ahead of print).

20.

Contreary K, Rich E, Collins A, O'Malley A, Reschovsky J. Supporting better physician decisions at the point of care: what payers and purchasers can do. Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, DC, USA (2016).

21.

Hess EP, Hollander JE, Schaffer JT et al. Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial. BMJ 355, i6165 (2016).

22.

Thom DH. Training physicians to increase patient trust. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 6(3), 245–253 (2000).

• Evaluation of training program to modify physician behaviors associated with increasing patient trust and improving outcomes.

23.

Siminoff LA. Incorporating patient and family preferences into evidence-based medicine. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 13(Suppl. 3), S6 (2013).

•• Discusses how patient-centered evidence-based medicine can be achieved through the incorporation of patient-derived data and physicians' consideration of sociocultural influences, such as a patient's family.

24.

Sanford J, Townsend-Rocchicciolli J, Horigan A, Hall P. A process of decision making by caregivers of family members with heart failure. Res. Theory Nurs. Prac. 25(1), 55–70 (2011).

25.

Brunson EK. How parents make decisions about their children's vaccinations. Vaccine 31(46), 5466–5470 (2013).

26.

Torke AM, Alexander GC, Lantos J. Substituted judgment: the limitations of autonomy in surrogate decision making. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 23(9), 1514–1517 (2008).

27.

Garvelink MM, Ngangue PAG, Adekpedjou R et al. A synthesis of knowledge about caregiver decision making finds gaps in support for those who care for aging loved ones. Health Aff. 35(4), 619–626 (2016).

28.

Gibson A, Boddy K, Maguire K, Britten N. Exploring the impact of providing evidence-based medicine training to service users. Research Involvement and Engagement 1(10), (2015) (Epub ahead of print).

29.

Volpp K, Loewenstein G, Asch D. Choosing Wisely: low-value services, utilization, and patient cost sharing. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 308(16), 1635–1636 (2012).

•• Discusses how value-based insurance design could be an effective tool to decrease usage of low-value services, supporting Choosing Wisely principles.

|