Search

Background: Physicians treating similar patients in similar care-delivery contexts vary in the intensity of life-extending care provided to their patients at the end-of-life. Physician psychological propensities are an important potential determinant of this variability, but the pertinent literature has yet to be synthesized. Objective: Conduct a review of qualitative studies to explicate whether and how psychological propensities could result in some physicians providing more intensive treatment than others. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in five major electronic databases—MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (Ovid), and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley)—to identify eligible studies (earliest available date to August 2021). Eligibility criteria included examination of a physician psychological factor as relating to end-of-life care intensity in advanced life-limiting illness. Findings from individual studies were pooled and synthesized using thematic analysis, which identified common, prevalent themes across findings. Results: The search identified 5623 references, of which 28 were included in the final synthesis. Seven psychological propensities were identified as influencing physician judgments regarding whether and when to withhold or de-escalate life-extending treatments resulting in higher treatment intensity: (1) professional identity as someone who extends lifespan, (2) mortality aversion, (3) communication avoidance, (4) conflict avoidance, (5) personal values favoring life extension, (6) decisional avoidance, and (7) over-optimism. Conclusions: Psychological propensities could influence physician judgments regarding whether and when to de-escalate life-extending treatments. Future work should examine how individual and environmental factors combine to create such propensities, and how addressing these propensities could reduce physician-attributed variation in end-of-life care intensity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pain management racial disparities exist, yet it is unclear whether disparities exist in pain management in advanced cancer.Objective: To examine the effect of race on physicians' pain assessment and treatment in advanced lung cancer and the moderating effect of patient activation.Design: Randomized field experiment. Physicians consented to see two unannounced standardized patients (SPs) over 18 months. SPs portrayed 4 identical roles-a 62-year-old man with advanced lung cancer and uncontrolled pain-differing by race (black or white) and role (activated or typical). Activated SPs asked questions, interrupted when necessary, made requests, and expressed opinions.Participants: Ninety-six primary care physicians (PCPs) and oncologists from small cities, and suburban and rural areas of New York, Indiana, and Michigan. Physicians' mean age was 52 years (SD = 27.17), 59% male, and 64% white.Main Measures: Opioids prescribed (or not), total daily opioid doses (in oral morphine equivalents), guideline-concordant pain management, and pain assessment.Key Results: SPs completed 181 covertly audio-recorded visits that had complete data for the model covariates. Physicians detected SPs in 15% of visits. Physicians prescribed opioids in 71% of visits; 38% received guideline-concordant doses. Neither race nor activation was associated with total opioid dose or guideline-concordant pain management, and there were no interaction effects (p > 0.05). Activation, but not race, was associated with improved pain assessment (ẞ, 0.46, 95% CI 0.18, 0.74). In post hoc analyses, oncologists (but not PCPs) were less likely to prescribe opioids to black SPs (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07, 0.81).Conclusions: Neither race nor activation was associated with opioid prescribing; activation was associated with better pain assessment. In post hoc analyses, oncologists were less likely to prescribe opioids to black male SPs than white male SPs; PCPs had no racial disparities. In general, physicians may be under-prescribing opioids for cancer pain.Trial Registration: NCT01501006. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnostic and treatment delay in depression are due to physician and patient factors. Patients vary in awareness of their depressive symptoms and ability to bring depression-related concerns to medical attention.Objective: To inform interventions to improve recognition and management of depression in primary care by understanding patients' inner experiences prior to and during the process of seeking treatment.Design: Focus groups, analyzed qualitatively.Participants: One hundred and sixteen adults (79% response) with personal or vicarious history of depression in Rochester NY, Austin TX and Sacramento CA. Neighborhood recruitment strategies achieved sociodemographic diversity.Approach: Open-ended questions developed by a multidisciplinary team and refined in three pilot focus groups explored participants' "lived experiences" of depression, depression-related beliefs, influences of significant others, and facilitators and barriers to care-seeking. Then, 12 focus groups stratified by gender and income were conducted, audio-recorded, and analyzed qualitatively using coding/editing methods.Main Results: Participants described three stages leading to engaging in care for depression - "knowing" (recognizing that something was wrong), "naming" (finding words to describe their distress) and "explaining" (seeking meaningful attributions). "Knowing" is influenced by patient personality and social attitudes. "Naming" is affected by incongruity between the personal experience of depression and its narrow clinical conceptualizations, colloquial use of the word depression, and stigma. "Explaining" is influenced by the media, socialization processes and social relations. Physical/medical explanations can appear to facilitate care-seeking, but may also have detrimental consequences. Other explanations (characterological, situational) are common, and can serve to either enhance or reduce blame of oneself or others.Conclusions: To improve recognition of depression, primary care physicians should be alert to patients' ill-defined distress and heterogeneous symptoms, help patients name their distress, and promote explanations that comport with patients' lived experience, reduce blame and stigma, and facilitate care-seeking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression treatment is often initially sought from primary care physicians.Objective: To explore the influence of physician personality on depression assessments.Design: Secondary analysis of data collected in a randomized controlled trial.Setting: Offices of primary care physicians in Rochester, NY.Participants: Forty-six physicians; six female actors.Intervention: Eighty-six unannounced standardized patient (SPs) visits; physicians saw one SP with major depression and one with adjustment disorder.Measurements: SPs listened to audiotapes and completed a form on doctoring behaviors and symptom inquiry immediately following the visit. For the assessment of diagnostic documentation, SPs' medical records were reviewed. Physician personality was assessed via items from the NEO-PI-R.Results: Physicians who are more dutiful and more vulnerable were more likely to document a diagnosis of depression; those who are more dutiful also asked fewer questions concerning mood symptoms.Limitation: Roles portrayed by the SPs may not reflect the experience of a typical primary care patient. Most of the PCPs were white men. The sample of PCPs was limited to a single geographic location. Effect sizes were modest.Conclusions: The clinical, educational, and translational, implications of research showing that physician personality traits could affect practice behaviors warrant consideration. Current models of treatment for depression in primary care could be engineered to accommodate the variability in physician personality. Given that there is no single "correct" way to ask about mood disorders or suicide, clinicians are encouraged to adopt an approach that fits their personal style and preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective treatments can be rendered useless by poor patient recall of treatment instructions. Studies suggest that patients forget a great deal of important information and that recall can be increased through recall-promoting behaviors (RPBs) like repetition or summarization.Objective: To assess how frequently RPBs are used in primary care, and to reveal how they might be applied more effectively.Design: Recordings of 49 unannounced standardized patient (SP) visits were obtained using hidden audiorecorders. All SPs presented with typical gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Transcripts were coded for treatment recommendations and RPBs.Participants: Forty-nine primary care physicians.Results: Of 1,140 RPBs, 53.7% were repetitions, 28.2% were communication of the rationale for a treatment, 11.7% were categorizations of treatments (i.e., stating that a treatment could be placed into a treatment category, such as medication-related or lifestyle-related categories), and 3.8% were emphasis of a recommendation's importance. Physicians varied substantially in their use of most RPBs, although no physicians summarized or asked patients to restate recommendations. The number of RPBs was positively correlated with visit length.Conclusions: Primary care physicians apply most RPBs inconsistently, do not utilize several RPBs that are particularly helpful, and may use RPBs inefficiently. Simple principles guiding RPB use may help physicians apply these communication tools more effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The ways in which patients' requests for antidepressants affect physicians' prescribing behavior are poorly understood.Objective: To describe physicians' affective and cognitive responses to standardized patients' (SPs) requests for antidepressants, as well as the attitudinal and contextual factors influencing prescribing behavior.Design: Focus group interviews and brief demographic questionnaires.Participants: Twenty-two primary care physicians in 6 focus groups; all had participated in a prior RCT of the influence of patients' requests on physicians' prescribing.Measurements: Iterative review of interview transcripts, involving qualitative coding and thematic analysis.Results: Physicians participating in the focus groups were frequently unaware of and denied the degree to which their thinking was biased by patient requests, but were able to recognize such biases after facilitated reflection. Common affective responses included annoyance and empathy. Common cognitive reactions resulted in further diagnostic inquiry or in acquiescing to the patient's demands to save time or build the patient-clinician relationship. Patients' requests for medication prompted the participants to err on the side of overtreating versus careful review of clinical indications. Lack of time and participants' attitudes--toward the role of the patient and the pharmaceutical ads--also influenced their responses, prompting them to interpret patient requests as diagnostic clues or opportunities for efficiency.Conclusions: This study provides a taxonomy of affective and cognitive responses to patients' requests for medications and the underlying attitudes and contextual factors influencing them. Improved capacity for moment-to-moment self-awareness during clinical reasoning processes may increase the appropriateness of prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous work suggests that exploration and validation of patients' concerns is associated with greater patient trust, lower health care costs, improved counseling, and more guideline-concordant care.Objective: To describe physicians' responses to patients' worries, how their responses varied according to clinical context (straightforward versus medically unexplained symptoms [MUS]) and associations between their responses and patients' ratings of interpersonal aspects of care.Design: Multimethod study. For each physician, we surveyed 50 current patients and covertly audiorecorded 2 unannounced standardized patient (SP) visits. SPs expressed worry about "something serious" in 2 scenarios: straightforward gastroesophageal reflux or poorly characterized chest pain with MUS.Participants: One hundred primary care physicians and 4,746 patients.Measurements: Patient surveys measuring interpersonal aspects of care (trust, physician knowledge of the patient, satisfaction, and patient activation). Qualitative coding of 189 transcripts followed by descriptive, multivariate, and lag-sequential analyses.Results: Physicians offered a mean of 3.1 responses to each of 613 SP prompts. Biomedical inquiry and explanations, action, nonspecific acknowledgment, and reassurance were common, whereas empathy, expressions of uncertainty, and exploration of psychosocial factors and emotions were uncommon. Empathy expressed during SP visits was associated with higher patient ratings of interpersonal aspects of care. After adjusting for demographics and comorbidities, the association was only statistically significant for the MUS role. Empathy was most likely to occur if expressed at the beginning of the conversational sequence.Conclusions: Empathy is associated with higher patient ratings of interpersonal care, especially when expressed in situations involving ambiguity. Empathy should be expressed early after patient expressions of worry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: It is not known to what extent the dean's letter (medical student performance evaluation [MSPE]) reflects peer-assessed work habits (WH) skills and/or interpersonal attributes (IA) of students. OBJECTIVE: To compare peer ratings of WH and IA of second- and third-year medical students with later MSPE rankings and ratings by internship program directors. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 281 medical students from the classes of 2004, 2005, and 2006 at a private medical school in the northeastern United States, who had participated in peer assessment exercises in the second and third years of medical school. For students from the class of 2004, we also compared peer assessment data against later evaluations obtained from internship program directors. RESULTS: Peer-assessed WH were predictive of later MSPE groups in both the second (F = 44.90, P < .001) and third years (F = 29.54, P< .001) of medical school. Interpersonal attributes were not related to MSPE rankings in either year. MSPE rankings for a majority of students were predictable from peer-assessed WH scores. Internship directors' ratings were significantly related to second- and third-year peer-assessed WH scores (r = .32 [P= .15] and r = .43 [P = .004]), respectively, but not to peer-assessed IA. CONCLUSIONS: Peer assessment of WH, as early as the second year of medical school, can predict later MSPE rankings and internship performance. Although peer- assessed IA can be measured reliably, they are unrelated to either outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Providing antidepressant information to patients may foster greater adherence to therapy.Objective: To assess physician information-giving while prescribing antidepressants, and to identify factors that influence the provision of information.Design: Randomized experiment using standardized patients (SPs). Standardized patients roles were generated by crossing 2 clinical conditions (major depression or adjustment disorder) with 3 medication request types (brand-specific, general, or none).Participants: One hundred and fifty-two general internists and family physicians recruited from solo and group practices and health maintenance organizations; cooperation rates ranged from 53% to 61%.Measurements: We assessed physician information-giving by analyzing audio-recordings of interactions between physicians and SPs, and collected physician background information by survey. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the influence of patient and physician factors on physicians' provision of information.Results: One hundred and one physicians prescribed antidepressants, accounting for 131 interactions. The mean age of physicians was 46.3 years; 69% were males. Physicians mentioned an average of 5.7 specific topics of antidepressant-related information (of a possible maximum of 11). The most frequently mentioned topic was purpose (96.1%). Physicians infrequently provided information about the duration of therapy (34.9%) and costs (21.4%). Standardized patients who presented with major depression received less information than those with adjustment disorder, and older and solo/private practice physicians provided significantly less information to SPs.Conclusions: Physicians provide limited information to patients while prescribing antidepressants, often omitting critical information that may promote adherence. Mechanisms are needed to ensure that patients receive pertinent antidepressant information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Referral from primary care to the mental health specialty sector is important but poorly understood.Objective: Identify physician characteristics influencing mental health referral.Design: Randomized controlled trial using Standardized Patients (SPs).Setting: Offices of primary care physicians in 3 cities.Participants: One hundred fifty-two family physicians and general internists recruited from 4 broad practice settings; 18 middle aged Caucasian female actors.Intervention: Two hundred and ninety-eight unannounced SP visits, with assignments constrained so physicians saw 1 SP with major depression and 1 with adjustment disorder.Measurements: Mental health referrals via SP written reports; physician and system characteristics through a self-administered physician questionnaire.Results: Among 298 SP visits, 107 (36%) resulted in mental health referral. Referrals were less likely among physicians with greater self-confidence in their ability to manage antidepressant therapy (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17 to 0.86) and were more likely if physicians typically spent > or =10% of professional time on nonclinical activities (AOR 3.42, 95% CI 1.45 to 8.07), had personal life experience with psychotherapy for depression (AOR 2.74, 95% CI 1.15 to 6.52), or usually had access to mental health consultation within 2 weeks (AOR 2.94, 95% CI 1.26 to 6.92).Limitation: The roles portrayed by SPs may not reflect the experience of a typical panel of primary care patients.Conclusions: Controlling for patient and health system factors, physicians' therapeutic confidence and personal experience were important influences on mental health referral. Research is needed to determine if addressing these factors can facilitate more appropriate care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate feasibility and to validate a rating scale for two educational programs that use standardized patient-instructors (SPIs) in the office setting to improve physicians' HIV risk communication skills.Design: Pilot randomized trial of announced and unannounced SPIs.Participants/settings: Twenty four primary care physicians in the Rochester, NY, area.Measurements: The Rochester HIV Interview Rating Scale (RHIRS), HIV test ordering, physician satisfaction questionnaire.Results: Physicians found the intervention useful, and predicted a positive effect on their future HIV-related communication. HIV test ordering and RHIRS scores increased similarly in both intervention groups. Announced SPI visits were more convenient and preferred by physicians. Cost for each SPI visit was $75.Conclusions: A brief office-based intervention using SPIs was feasible, well-accepted, convenient, and inexpensive. Announced SPIs were preferred to unannounced SPIs. Pilot results suggesting improvement in HIV-related communication should be confirmed in a larger randomized trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Focuses on the virtual relationship between physicians and patients. Influence of the web communication on the patient-physician relationship; Necessity of qualitative healing relationship between the patient and physician; Implementation of a biopsychosocial approach to clinical practice of healing.

The article offers information on epidemic of burnout and physician discontent. It discusses whether outcome assessment should focus on wellbeing, resilience, work engagement, quality of care, attrition, or burnout itself. it also discussed Eudaimonia as sense of deep engagement and coherence and practitioner's deepest values.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Medical students' views on peer assessment of professionalism," by Louise Arnold, Carolyn K. Shue, B. Kritt, S. Ginsburg, and David T. Stern in the 2005 issue.

In this issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, three articles address the complex influence of external regulation of health care systems on perceptions of time, professional and patient satisfaction, and medical education. The articles address the effects of several rapidly evolving directions in the financing of health care and regulations controlling health professions education. These systems factors have unintentionally placed the interests of patients, physicians, and trainees in conflict. Although time is often the focus of these conflicts, I believe that the issue is much deeper and more complex. In this issue of JGIM, Linzer et al.[sup 3] report on a carefully designed cross-sectional study of 5,704 physicians. They found that perceived time pressure is associated with lower physician satisfaction, and that both time pressure and lower physician satisfaction are more common in HMO settings. The data presented in this study reflect a realistic concern about the patient-physician relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]