Search

Background: Risk score calculators are a widely developed tool to support clinicians in identifying and managing risk for certain diseases. However, little is known about physicians' applied experiences with risk score calculators and the role of risk score estimates in clinical decision making and patient communication., Methods: Physicians providing care in outpatient community-based clinical settings ( N  = 20) were recruited to participate in semi-structured individual interviews to assess their use of risk score calculators in practice. Two study team members conducted an inductive thematic analysis using a consensus-based coding approach., Results: Participants referenced at least 20 risk score calculators, the most common being the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator. Ecological factors related to the clinical system (e.g., time), patient (e.g., receptivity), and physician (e.g., experience) influenced conditions and patterns of risk score calculator use. For example, compared with attending physicians, residents tended to use a greater variety of risk score calculators and with higher frequency. Risk score estimates were generally used in clinical decision making to improve or validate clinical judgment and in patient communication to serve as a motivational tool., Conclusions: The degree to which risk score estimates influenced physician decision making and whether and how these scores were communicated to patients varied, reflecting a nuanced role of risk score calculator use in clinical practice. The theory of planned behavior can help explain how attitudes, beliefs, and norms shape the use of risk score estimates in clinical decision making and patient communication. Additional research is needed to evaluate best practices in the use of risk score calculators and risk score estimates., Highlights: The risk score calculators and estimates that participants referenced in this study represented a range of conditions (e.g., heart disease, anxiety), levels of model complexity (e.g., probability calculations, scales of severity), and output formats (e.g., point estimates, risk intervals).Risk score calculators that are easily accessed, have simple inputs, and are trusted by physicians appear more likely to be used.Risk score estimates were generally used in clinical decision making to improve or validate clinical judgment and in patient communication to serve as a motivational tool.Risk score estimates helped participants manage the uncertainty and complexity of various clinical situations, yet consideration of the limitations of these estimates was relatively minimal.Developers of risk score calculators should consider the patient- (e.g., response to risk score estimates) and physician- (e.g., training status) related characteristics that influence risk score calculator use in addition to that of the clinical system., Competing Interests: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: EMM is or has been a consultant to Amgen, Cytokinetics, PepGen, Pfizer, and Tenaya Therapeutics and is a founder of Ikaika Therapeutics. These activities are unrelated to the content of this article. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Health care professionals can enhance conversations about serious illness and medical decision-making by adopting a transparent, standardized approach. This article critiques established communication strategies, which often emphasize patient values and goals without providing the necessary medical information to align these goals with a shared understanding of prognosis. We propose an alternate strategy that (1) provides detailed explanations of medical conditions at the beginning of the conversation, (2) includes support persons in discussions, (3) considers capacity, and (4) offers tailored advice by clinicians. The proposed framework aims to provide patients (or their delegates) with the information they need to integrate their values in pursuit of well-informed medical decisions. This strategy builds trust by providing honest information about medical conditions and their trajectories. It empowers decision makers to consider realistic outcomes, allowing them to accept or reject treatments in accordance with their preferences. This article presents a thorough step-by-step guide on how to conduct a serious illness conversation and facilitate medical decision-making, including a supplement that provides example phrases for use in clinical practice.

It is perhaps most useful to approach the Doctor-Patient relationship (DPR) by admitting that it's complicated. We review some of the strategies that have been employed to mitigate this complexity, zeroing in on one that promises to capture the main features of the DPR without eliminating some of its more important, existential components; pieces of the puzzle that must be retained if we are to avoid oversimplification and the errors that can arise by ignoring important foundational properties. We believe that a useful way to look at the DPR and to capture essential features that must be balanced in the process is provided by Partnership Theory and its definition in terms of the so-called domination and partnership systems. We apply this theory to the DPR and investigate the implications of this application to health care. We see that in the absence of mitigating circumstances, adoption of the patient-as-partner model serves healthcare well and is flexible enough to accommodate circumstances that dictate modifications., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate how doctor-patient communication, trust in doctors impacted patients' experience and satisfaction in shared decision-making (SDM)., Methods: This study is based on the data from a cross-sectional survey (n = 12,401) conducted in 27 public specialist outpatient clinics in Hong Kong., Results: The multivariable regression models revealed that doctors' better communication skills were associated with lower decision-making involvement (odd ratio, 0.75 [95 % CI, 0.88-0.94], P < .001) but higher satisfaction with involvement (odd ratio, 6.88 [95 % CI, 5.99-7.93], P < .001). Similarly, longer consultation durations were associated with reduced involvement in decision-making (odd ratio, 0.71 [95 % CI, 0.66-0.73], P < .001) but increased satisfaction with involvement (odd ratio, 1.91 [95 % CI, 1.80-2.04], P < .001). Trust in doctors significantly mediated these associations, except for the association between consultation duration and patients' satisfaction with decision-making involvement., Conclusion: Doctors' better communication skills and longer consultations might not necessarily increase patient involvement in SDM but correlated with increased satisfaction with involvement. Trust in doctors emerged as a mediator for participation and satisfaction in decision-making., Practice Implications: Clinics should consider patients' preferences and capabilities when tailoring communication strategies about decision-making and optimizing patient satisfaction., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study tests two hypotheses about spine pain patients' expectations for consultations and their negative evaluations. High expectations may be impractical or unachievable and can set patients up for disappointment. Unmet expectations are the absolute difference between expectations before the visit and perceptions of expectations actually enacted., Method: We conducted a single-site prospective study using pre- and post-consultation surveys. Patients (N = 200) were English-speaking individuals aged 18-75 presenting for an initial consultation for musculoskeletal pain. Analyses were conducted in SPSS v. 28.0 using mixed modeling to account for interdependence among cases., Results: Contrary to initial predictions, higher pre-consultation expectations for shared decision-making were positively linked to post-consultation satisfaction, trust, and agreement. Exceeding expectations in shared decision-making, history-taking, examination, and interpersonal skills significantly enhanced post-consultation outcomes., Conclusions: Results support the unmet expectations hypothesis over the high expectations hypothesis. Increased expectations and exceeding these expectations in key areas of patient-physician interaction were positively associated with improved consultation outcomes., Practice Implications: Findings highlight the importance of exceeding multifaceted patient expectations in physician evaluations. Yet, physicians must first understand the nature and source of each patient's expectations pre-consultation, which vary across individuals in aspirational and realistic dimensions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

This is an observational study in which we evaluated current levels of risk communication (RC) among gynaecological oncologists and their view on the Mapping All Patient Probabilities in Numerical Graphs (MAPPING) application as a possible tool to facilitate RC and shared decision-making (SDM). In part A, we audio-recorded 29 conversations between gynaecological oncologists and patients when discussing treatment options. In part B, interviews were performed with eight gynaecological oncologists.RC and SDM were measured using two observer-based measures, that is, the RC content (RCC) tool (scale 0-2) and the OPTION-5 instrument (scale 0-100). We used CollaboRATE questionnaire (scale 0-10) and a self-developed survey to assess patient-reported RC and SDM. In part B, we evaluated physicians' attitudes regarding the use of the MAPPING application to support RC. Patients were minimally involved in the decision-making process (OPTION-5 25.9%±13.4 RCC 0.21±0.18). Patient-reported SDM was high (mean collaboRATE score 9.19±1.79) and patients preferred receiving numeric information, whereas most physicians used qualitative risk terms rather than exact numbers. In part B, gynaecologists had a positive attitude towards the MAPPING application. However, they stated that the app was difficult to use improvement of layout and better implementations are needed., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This study examines how conversations between patients and clinicians about the causes of their health conditions relate to patient engagement in care. Leveraging cultural health capital (CHC) theory, we find that patient-physician discussions of health attributions are one mechanism to build patient understanding and activate engagement. We present a qualitative interpretive analysis of data collected in three phases with adult home health care patients: phone interviews (n = 28), field observations (n = 61), and semi-structured field interviews (n = 38). We find that engaging in discussions of causal health attributions with clinicians enables patients to overcome uncertainty, envision preventive actions, and engage in setting future goals. Such discussions must be supported by acknowledgement of the co-responsibility of individual factors and structural factors such as social determinants of health. These discussions are not easy to navigate but they can potentially help patients transition from a mindset of treating the disease (pathogenic approach) to an awareness of their available capabilities to improve health (salutogenic approach). This study contributes to research on attribution theory and cultural health capital theory by demonstrating how discussing causes for poor health can enable patients resolve doubts and accrue instrumental and symbolic resources that facilitate healing., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this study., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: There is variation in exposure to transplantation in undergraduate medical education. We created a program pairing medical students with transplant patients for semi-structured, virtual encounters and studied the impact on both students and patients using qualitative content analysis., Methods: Fifty medical students were paired with transplant recipients and donors for non-medical virtual encounters. Separate focus groups were conducted, deidentified, and analyzed using a constant comparative method., Results: Three themes related to the student experience emerged: transplant-related relationships, a deeper understanding of the patient's journey to transplant, and alterations of their personal view of organ donation and transplantation. Three themes emerged from the patient's experiences: the benefits of conversations, the patient as a teacher, and spreading the message of organ donation and transplantation., Conclusions: This novel program demonstrates that virtual student-patient interactions are a useful approach to engage patients and a unique way to teach medical students about transplantation and donation., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Shared decision making, a collaborative approach between patient and provider that considers the patient's values and preferences in addition to the scientific evidence, is a complex clinical activity that has not realized its full potential. Gaps in education and training have been cited as barriers to shared decision making, and evidence is inconsistent on effective educational interventions. Because individual agents with their own social and behavioral contexts co-construct a shared decision, the educational approach may need to consider the role of patient agency and sociocultural influences. To address the inherent complexity in shared decision making, the authors identified cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) as a framework for analysis. Although certainly not the only relevant theory, CHAT offers an appropriate lens through which the multivoiced nature of shared decision making can be more clearly appreciated. In this article, the authors demonstrate the application of CHAT as a lens for researchers and educators to examine the complexity of shared decision making. The fictitious case presented in this article describes the use of CHAT with a patient who experiences 2 clinical encounters; during the second, shared decision making takes place. Elements of the case are threaded through the article, demonstrating a sample analysis of the interacting activity systems of the patient and physician and highlighting inherent tensions and contradictions. The authors propose CHAT as a tool for future research around the role of agency in shared decision making and other complex topics and as a framework for design of novel instructional strategies. Although not applicable to all topics and settings, CHAT has significant potential within health professions education.

Competing Interests: The author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Background: Shared decision-making aims to combine what matters most to a patient with clinician expertise to develop a personalized health strategy. It is a dialogue between patient and clinician in which preferences are expressed, misconceptions reoriented, and available options are considered. To improve patient involvement, it would help to know more about specific barriers and facilitators of patient-clinician communication. Health literacy, the ability to obtain, process, and understand health information, may affect patient participation in decision-making. If the patient is quiet, deferential, and asks few questions, the clinician may assume a more paternalistic style. A patient with greater agency and engagement could be the catalyst for shared decisions., Questions/purposes: We assessed (1) whether effective clinician communication and effort is related to patient health literacy, and (2) if there are other factors associated with effective clinician communication and effort., Methods: We combined a prospective, cross-sectional cohort of 86 audio-recorded visits of adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem at an urban community hospital in the Netherlands with a cohort of 72 audio-recorded hand surgery visits from a tertiary hospital in the United States collected for a prior study. The American cohort represents a secondary use of data from a set of patients from a separate study using audio-recorded visits and administering similar questionnaires that assessed different endpoints. In both cohorts, adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem were screened. In total, 165 patients were initially screened, of which 96% (158) participated. Eight percent (13) of visits were excluded since the final diagnosis remained unclear, 8% (12) since it was not the first consultation for the current problem, 5% (8) in which only one treatment option was available, and < 1% (1) since there was a language barrier. A total of 123 patients were analyzed, 68 from the Netherlands and 55 from the United States. The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy test, validated in both English and Dutch, measures the ability to use health information and is based on a nutrition label from an ice cream container. It was used to assess patient health literacy on a scale ranging from 0 (low) to 6 (high). The 5-item Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) instrument is commonly used to assess the quality of patient-clinician discussion of options. Scores may be influenced by clinician effort to involve patients in decision-making as well as patient engagement and agency. Each item is scored from 0 (no effort) to 4 (maximum effort), with a total maximum score of 20. Two independent raters reached agreement (kappa value 0.8; strong agreement), after which all recordings were scored by one investigator. Visit duration and patient questions were assessed using the audio recordings. Patients had a median (interquartile range) age of 54 (38 to 66) years, 50% were men, 89% were white, 66% had a nontraumatic diagnosis, median (IRQ) years of education was 16 (12 to 18) years, and median (IQR) health literacy score was 5 (2 to 6). Median (IQR) visit duration was 9 (7 to 12) minutes. Cohorts did not differ in important ways. The number of visits per clinician ranged from 14 to 29, and the mean overall communication effectiveness and effort score for the visits was low (8.5 ± 4.2 points of 20 points). A multivariate linear regression model was used to assess factors associated with communication effectiveness and effort., Results: There was no correlation between health literacy and clinician communication effectiveness and effort (r = 0.087 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.26]; p = 0.34), nor was there a difference in means (SD) when categorizing health literacy as inadequate (7.8 ± 3.8 points) and adequate (8.9 ± 4.5 points; mean difference 1.0 [95% CI -2.6 to 0.54]; p = 0.20). After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, patient questions, and health literacy, we found that longer visit duration (per 1 minute increase: r2 = 0.31 [95% CI -0.14 to 0.48]; p < 0.001), clinician 3 (compared with clinician 1: OR 33 [95% CI 4.8 to 229]; p < 0.001) and clinician 5 (compared with clinician 1: OR 11 [95% CI 1.5 to 80]; p = < 0.02) were independently associated with more effective communication and effort, whereas clinician 6 was associated with less effective communication and effort (compared with clinician 1: OR 0.08 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.75]; p = 0.03). Clinicians' communication strategies (the clinician variable on its own) accounted for 29% of the variation in communication effectiveness and effort, longer visit duration accounted for 11%, and the full model accounted for 47% of the variation (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: The finding that the overall low mean communication effectiveness and effort differed between clinicians and was not influenced by patient factors including health literacy suggests clinicians may benefit from training that moves them away from a teaching or lecturing style where patients receive rote directives regarding their health. Clinicians can learn to adapt their communication to specific patient values and needs using a guiding rather than directing communication style (motivational interviewing).Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Introduction: Oncologists have increasingly been proponents of shared decision making (SDM) to enhance patient outcomes and reduce unnecessary health care spending. However, its effect on patient out-of-pocket costs is unknown. This study investigated the relationship between patient preferences for SDM and financial toxicity (FT) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized surveys of women aged ≥ 18 with MBC who received care at two academic hospitals in Alabama from 2017 to 2019. Patients self-reported their SDM preference (Control Preferences Scale) and FT (Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity [COST] tool; 11-item scale, with lower scores indicating worse FT). Effect sizes were calculated using the proportion of variance explained (R 2 ) or Cramer's V. Differences in FT by SDM preference were estimated using mixed models clustered by site and treating medical oncologist., Results: In 95 women with MBC, 44% preferred SDM, 29% preferred provider-driven decision making, and 27% preferred patient-driven decision making. Patients preferring SDM were more often college educated (53% vs. 39%; V = 0.12) with an income greater than $40,000/y (55% vs. 43%; V = 0.18). Overall median COST was 22 (interquartile range, 16-29). After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, patients preferring patient-driven decision making trended toward worse FT (COST 17: 95% confidence interval, 12-22) compared to those preferring SDM (COST 19: 95% confidence interval, 15-23) and those preferring provider-driven decision making (COST 22: 95% confidence interval, 17-27)., Conclusion: Patients preferring more patient-driven decision making reported worse FT, although differences did not reach statistical significance. Further research is needed to understand this relationship., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Drawing from social identity threat theory, which posits that stigmatized groups are attuned to situational cues that signal racial bias, we examined how African-American veterans evaluate verbal and non-verbal cues in their mental health encounters. We also explored how their evaluations of perceived racial bias might influence their healthcare engagement behaviors and communication., Methods: We interviewed 85 African-American veterans who were receiving mental health services from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), examining their views and experiences of race in healthcare. We analyzed the data using a constructivist grounded theory approach., Results: Participants identified several identity threatening cues that include lack of racial diversity representation in healthcare settings, and perceptions of providers' fears of Black patients. We describe how participants evaluated situational cues as identity threats, and how these cues affected their engagement behaviors and healthcare communication., Conclusion: Our findings revealed situational cues within clinical encounters that create for Black veterans, fear of being negatively judged based on stereotypes that have characterized African-Americans., Practice Implications: We discuss the implications of these findings and provide suggestions on how to create identity safe environments for minority patients that include delivery of person-centered care, and organizational structures that reduce providers' burnout., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Goals-of-care conversations are a central component of high-quality patient-centered care. However, clinicians may not engage in such conversations until patients are critically ill., Objective: To assess the frequency and quality of goals-of-care conversation documentation among patients who died in an intensive care unit, and then to develop and implement mechanisms to improve the quantity and quality of such conversations., Methods: A baseline retrospective medical records review of intensive care unit deaths that occurred within 1 year was conducted to assess the barriers to high-quality goals-of-care conversations. A nurse-led inter-professional task force was formed to address possible solutions., Interventions: A new electronic health record tab, note type, and preformatted template known as a SmartPhrase for goals-of-care conversations were created. Nurses and physicians were educated and encouraged to perform and document goals-of-care conversations., Results: Before implementation of the initiative, the electronic health record lacked a consistent place to document goals-of-care conversations, and such conversations were not occurring until patients required intensive care. Moreover, the content of documentation of the conversations was inconsistent. Three years after implementation of the initiative, the goals-of-care conversation documentation tab was used for 75% of hospital deaths, and 67% of goals-of-care conversation notes included use of the SmartPhrase template., Conclusions: Electronic health record platforms can be used to improve the frequency, consistency of documentation, and quality of goals-of-care conversations. A standardized process coupled with effective work tools can foster a culture of advance care planning., (©2020 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when a patient partners with their oncologist to integrate personal preferences and values into treatment decisions. A key component of SDM is the elicitation of patient preferences and values, yet little is known about how and when these are elicited, communicated, prioritized, and documented within clinical encounters., Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated nationwide data collected by CancerCare to better understand current patterns of SDM between patients and their oncology clinicians. Patient surveys included questions about the importance of quality-of-life preferences and discussions regarding quality-of-life priorities with their clinicians. Clinician surveys included questions about the discussion of quality-of-life priorities and preferences with patients, the effect of quality-of-life priorities on treatment recommendations, and quality-of-life priority documentation in practice., Results: Patient survey completers (n = 320; 33% response rate) were predominantly women (95%), had a diagnosis of breast cancer (59%), or were receiving active cancer treatment (59%). Clinician survey completers (n = 112; 5% response rate) predominately identified as hematologists or oncologists (66%). Although 67% of clinicians reported knowing their patients' personal quality-of-life priorities and preferences before finalizing treatment plans, only 37% of patients reported that these discussions occurred before treatment initiation. Most patients (95%) considered out-of-pocket expenses important during treatment planning, yet only 59% reported discussing out-of-pocket expenses with their clinician before finalizing treatment plans. A majority of clinicians (52%) considered clinic questionnaires as feasible to document quality-of-life priorities and preferences., Conclusions: Patients and clinicians reported that preferences related to quality-of-life should be considered in treatment decision making, yet barriers to SDM, preference elicitation, and documentation remain., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Patient preferences regarding their involvement in shared treatments decisions is fundamental in clinical practice. Previous evidences demonstrated a large heterogeneity in these preferences. However, only few studies have analysed the influence of patients' individual differences, contextual and situational qualities, and their complex interaction in explaining this variability., Methods: We assessed the role of the interaction of patient's sociodemographic and psychological factors with a physician's gender. Specifically, we focused on patient gender and attitudes toward male or female physicians. One hundred fifty-three people participated in this randomised controlled study and were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions in which they were asked to imagine discussing their treatment with a male and a female doctor., Results: Analyses showed an interplay between attitude towards women and the gender of patients and doctors, explaining interindividual variability in patient preferences., Conclusions: In conclusion, patients' attitudes toward the physicians' gender constitutes a relevant characteristic that may influence the degree of control patients want to have and the overall patient-physician relationship., (© 2020 The Authors. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Association of Applied Psychology.)

Background: Meeting the expectations of patients is one of the most crucial criteria when assessing the quality of a healthcare system. This study aimed to compare the expectations and experiences of patients of primary care in Poland and to identify key patient characteristics affecting these outlooks., Methods: The study was performed within the framework of the international Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study. In Poland, a nationally representative sample of 2218 patients were recruited to take part in the study. As a study tool, we used data from two of four QUALICOPC questionnaires: "Patient Experience" and "Patient Values"., Results: Patients' expectations were fulfilled in all study areas: accessibility, continuity, quality of care, and equity. We observed that the highest-met expectations indexes were in the area of quality of care, while the lowest, but still with a positive value, were in the area of accessibility. Patient-doctor communication was the aspect most valued by study participants. Elements of the patient's own level of engagement during the consultation were ranked as less essential., Conclusions: Comparing patient experiences to their values allows us to identify areas for improvement that are prioritized by patients. Accessibility is recognized as the most important area by Polish patients, simultaneously showing the highest level of patient-perceived improvement potential. Interpersonal care is another domain, in which the needs of patients are satisfied but are also relatively high. Strong clinician-patient relationships seem to be a priority in patients' expectations. The continuous efforts in interpersonal communication skills training for primary care physicians should be upgraded.

This study assessed the effect of a question prompt sheet (QPS) on the oncologist-patient relationship as compared with a question listing (QL). In particular, the differences in difficulties perceived by the oncologist during the consultation and in the patient's experience of the therapeutic aspects of the relationship were assessed. A total of 324 patients with a recent diagnosis of early stage breast cancer were involved in the study. The results showed that 15.7% of patients were perceived as 'difficult' by the oncologists. The proportion of 'difficult' patients varied in the two groups: 20.6% in the QPS group versus 11.8% in the QL group. The results also showed that the higher the difficulty perceived by oncologists, the lower the satisfaction of patients for their relationship with the oncologists during the consultation (r = - .135, p = .033). It is likely that the higher level of difficulty perceived by the oncologist in the QPS group may be connected with the pre-prepared list of evidence-based questions. Further research is needed to understand which components of the interventions, relating to the patient, the oncologist or their interaction, really promote patient participation in cancer setting. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01510964. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01510964.

The researchers' aim was to assess provider gender preference among women attending the urogynecology clinic. Two hundred women with pelvic floor disorders completed a detailed questionnaire regarding possible gender preferences in choosing their urogynecologist. One-third of women preferred a female doctor while two-thirds had no preference. We found that embarrassment during the pelvic examination was the main reason for same-gender preference. This preference was significantly associated with educational level and being religious. In conclusion, although one-third of female patients prefer female urogynecologists, professional skills are considered to be more important factors when it comes to actually make a choice.

Background: The extent to which patients and service users are involved in medical education varies widely. There is a need for an up to date systematic review of the literature that examines what involvement (description), the potential outcome of such involvement (justification) and 'why' such involvement impacts students (clarification). Methods: Systematic searches of four databases were undertaken. Citations were screened and consensus reached for inclusion/exclusion of studies. Quality of study design and interventional presentation were assessed. Results: Of the 39 studies included in the review, 4 studies were encounter based, 17 sharing experiences, 16 with patients involved in teaching, 2 studies describing consumers as tutors, and none with involvement at the institutional level. Outcomes in terms of benefits to learners included increased empathy and understanding of illness as experienced by patients, improved communication with patients and a greater understanding of patient-center care. Educational quality assessment showed specific weaknesses in theoretical underpinning, curriculum outcomes, content or pedagogy. Conclusions: Patients can enrich medical education by allowing learners to explore patient-centered perspectives in holistic care. For educators this review highlights the lack of an underpinning conceptual basis for which to translate theory into practice.

Objectives: To discover the opinions of psychiatric patients about personnel attitudes and family participation in the treatment process., Methods: 219 psychiatric patients took part in the study: 80 inpatients, 69 outpatients and 70 mental health clinic patients. The diagnostic survey method was applied using a patient questionnaire regarding: (1) the patient's opinion on his or her hospital stay as an inpatient, (2) the patient's opinion on his or her care as a hospital outpatient, mental health clinic patient, or community treatment patient, and (3) research on patient satisfaction with the administered medical service VSSS-54., Results: 81.25% of patients confirmed receiving mental support during treatment at inpatient departments, compared to 88.41% of patients in outpatient hospital treatment and 84.29% of patients at mental health clinics. Hospital inpatients and mental health clinic patients indicated the doctor as the person providing the greatest amount of support; whereas hospital outpatients indicated a therapist. The majority of hospital inpatients (76.25%) indicated that nurses spent sufficient time with them. The rate of positive responses regarding doctors was 61.25% (p =0.000). 66.67% of hospital outpatients indicated that personnel spent sufficient time with them, whereas among mental health clinic patients this figure was 57.14%. Hospital outpatients and mental health clinic patients were asked abouttheir satisfaction with inclusion of family in the treatment process. The respondents gave this aspect of care a mean rating of 3.807 points (out of 5 available)., Conclusions: In order to increase mental health patient satisfaction, some organisational solutions which would result in both an increase in time spent by the personnel in contact with the patient as well as greater inclusion of family in the treatment process should be implemented.

Background: The degree to which patients participate in their care can have a positive impact on health outcomes. This review aimed to map the current literature on patient participation behaviours in interactions with physicians and the extent to which differences in these behaviours can be explained by socio-economic status (SES)., Search Strategy: Four electronic databases were searched from 1980 onwards using key words related to socio-economic status and patient participation behaviours., Study Selection: Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened by two reviewers, with the second reviewer screening 20% of all entries., Data Extraction: Data on year of publication, country, patient population, setting, patient participation behaviour studied, and SES measure used were extracted., Main Results: Forty-nine studies were included in the review. Most studies were conducted in the United States, and the most commonly studied patient participation behaviour was involvement in decision making. Most studies measured SES using education as an indicator, with very few studies using occupation as a measure. Many studies did not report on participants' medical condition or study setting. Patient participation in their health-care appointment increased with increasing SES in 24 studies, although in 27 studies no significant association was found., Discussion and Conclusions: Current literature was found to be mainly US-centric. Many studies did not specify participants' medical condition or in what setting the study was undertaken. More studies are needed on less commonly studied patient participation behaviours. It would be helpful for further studies to also include a wider range of SES indicators., (© 2019 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: We sought to determine how patient-physician communication affects patients' decision-making when choosing between contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and unilateral mastectomy (UM)., Methods: atients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy at our institution were approached with a survey regarding patient-physician communication in CPM., Results: Of 101 patients who completed the survey, 55 underwent CPM (54.5%). Thirty-three patients (33%) stated that their physician recommended UM, six (6%) stated their physician recommended CPM, and 61 (61%) stated they engaged in active participation in decision-making. Most patients whose doctors recommended UM chose UM (78.8%); similarly, 83.3% of those whose doctors recommended CPM chose CPM. Of 39 patients whose doctors recommended a particular surgical option, eight (20.5%) did not follow their doctor's advice. These patients were equally as satisfied with their decisions as those who followed their doctor's advice (P = 0.441). Patients engaging in active participation in decision-making tended to choose CPM (68.3% versus 30.8%, P < 0.001). Patients who did not engage in active participation were similarly satisfied with their decision as those who did (P = 0.286). Twelve patients (12%) stated they preferred their doctor to provide a recommendation, seven (7%) preferred to make the decision on their own, and 81 (81%) preferred to actively participate in their decision-making with the physician., Conclusions: Patients tend to follow physicians' recommendation of UM or CPM; patients engaging in SDM tend to choose CPM. Most patients prefer to engage in active participation in decision-making with their physician but were equally satisfied with their surgical decision whether they engaged in active participation or not., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Information exchange between physician and patient is crucial to achieve patient involvement, shared decision making and treatment adherence. No reliable method exists for measuring how much information physicians provide in a complex, unscripted medical conversation, nor how much of this information patients recall. This study aims to fill this gap by developing a measurement system designed to compare complex orally provided information to patient recall., Methods: The development of the complex information transfer measurement system required nine methodological steps. Core activities were data collection, definition of information units and the first draft of a codebook, refinement through independent coding and consensus, and reliability testing. Videotapes of physician-patient consultations based on a standardized scenario and post-consultation interviews with patients constituted the data. The codebook was developed from verbatim transcriptions of the videotapes. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using a random selection of 10% of the statements in the transcriptions., Results: Thirtyfour transcriptions of visits and interviews were collected. We developed a set of rules for defining a single unit of information, defined detailed criteria for exclusion and inclusion of relevant units of information, and outlined systematic counting procedures. In the refinement phase, we established a system for comparing the information provided by the physician with what the patient recalled. While linguistic and conceptual issues arose during the process, coders still achieved good inter-rater reliability, with intra-class correlation for patient recall: 0.723, and for doctors: 0.761. A full codebook is available as an appendix., Conclusions: A measurement system specifically aimed at quantifying complex unscripted information exchange may be a useful addition to the tools for evaluating the results of health communication training and randomized controlled trials.

Objectives: Shared decision-making (SDM) is receiving increasing attention in emergency medicine because of its potential to increase patient engagement and decrease unnecessary healthcare utilisation. This study sought to explore physician-identified barriers to and facilitators of SDM in the ED., Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with practising emergency physicians (EP) with the aim of understanding when and why EPs engage in SDM, and when and why they feel unable to engage in SDM. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a three-member team coded all transcripts in an iterative fashion using a directed approach to qualitative content analysis. We identified emergent themes, and organised themes based on an integrative theoretical model that combined the theory of planned behaviour and social cognitive theory., Results: Fifteen EPs practising in the New England region of the USA were interviewed. Physicians described the following barriers: time constraints, clinical uncertainty, fear of a bad outcome, certain patient characteristics, lack of follow-up and other emotional and logistical stressors. They noted that risk stratification methods, the perception that SDM decreased liability and their own improving clinical skills facilitated their use of SDM. They also noted that the culture of the institution could play a role in discouraging or promoting SDM, and that patients could encourage SDM by specifically asking about alternatives., Conclusions: EPs face many barriers to using SDM. Some, such as lack of follow-up, are unique to the ED; others, such as the challenges of communicating uncertainty, may affect other providers. Many of the barriers to SDM are amenable to intervention, but may be of variable importance in different EDs. Further research should attempt to identify which barriers are most prevalent and most amenable to intervention, as well as capitalise on the facilitators noted., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Portals to allow patients to access their primary care medical records are necessary to achieve true collaborative care between doctors and patients. In this article, we outline a practical approach to achieving this goal that involves Ministries of Health, electronic medical record vendors, physicians and patients. Patient portals to primary care records could make possible an entirely new world of on-the-spot, customized learning. Patient portals ideally should be designed with the goal of optimizing patients' to better their ability to help themselves. Delaying implementation of these portals exacts a continued financial and personal hardship on patients and their families., (Copyright © 2019 Longwoods Publishing.)

Background: Although unscheduled readmissions are increasingly being used as a quality indicator, only few readmission studies have focused on surgical patient populations., Methods: An observational study "CURIOS@" was performed at three centers in the Netherlands. Readmitted patients and treating doctors were surveyed to assess the discharge process during index admission and their opinion on predictability and preventability of the readmission. Risk factors associated with predictability and preventability as judged by patients and their doctor were identified. Cohen's kappa was calculated to measure pairwise agreement of considering readmission as predictable/preventable. PRISMA root cause categories were used to qualify the reasons for readmission., Results: In 237 unscheduled surgical readmissions, more patients assessed their readmissions to be likely preventable compared with their treating doctors (28.7% versus 6.8%; kappa, 0.071). This was also reflected in poor consensus about risk factors and root causes of these readmissions. When patients reported that they did not feel ready for discharge or requested their doctor to allow them to stay longer at discharge during index admission, they deemed their readmission more likely predictable and preventable. Doctors focused on measurable factors such as the clinical frailty scale and biomarkers during discharge process. Health-care worker failures were strongly associated with preventable readmissions., Conclusions: There is no consensus between readmitted patients and treating doctors about predictability and preventability of readmissions, nor about associated risk factors and root causes. Patients should be more effectively involved in their discharge process, and the relevance of optimal communication between them should be emphasized to create a safe and efficient discharge process., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) frequently experience deterioration in glycemic control. Providers have unique opportunities to address diabetes self-management, yet little is known about the most effective way to communicate with adolescents. This investigation used a motivational interviewing (MI) framework to characterize naturally-occurring adolescent patient-provider communication in medical encounters and examined relations between adolescent patient-provider communication and (a) T1D self-management and (b) glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c])., Methods: Medical encounters between pediatric endocrine providers and 55 adolescents with T1D (49% female; M age = 14.8 years; M baseline HbA1c = 8.6%) were audio recorded and coded using standardized rating instruments. Patients and parents completed measures assessing T1D care behaviors and self-efficacy. Assessments were completed at routine endocrinology visits (baseline) and 1 and 3-month post-baseline; HbA1c was obtained from medical records at baseline and 3-month., Results: Hierarchical multiple regressions showed that greater provider use of MI non-adherent behaviors (eg, confronting, persuading) was associated with (a) poorer 3-month HbA1c, P < 0.001; (b) worse 1-month adolescent diabetes adherence P < 0.001, and (c) lower diabetes self-efficacy at 1-month (P < 0.001) follow-up. Lower patient self-efficacy for diabetes self-management mediated the relation between provider use of MI non-adherent language and lower diabetes adherence (P = 0.020)., Conclusion: Providers' use of persuasion and confrontation regarding risks of non-adherence was associated with poorer glycemic control and adherence. Communication training for providers that targets reductions in MI-inconsistent language may have the potential to improve diabetes self-care in this vulnerable population., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Shared decision-making (SDM) has emerged as the preferred decision-making model in the clinician-patient relationship. Through collaboration, SDM helps to facilitate evidence-based medical decisions that are closely aligned with patient or surrogate preferences, values, and goals. How to implement SDM in clinical pediatric practice, however, remains elusive, in part because SDM in pediatrics is complicated by the involvement of parents as a special class of surrogate decision-maker. A provisional framework for the process of SDM in pediatrics was recently proposed by Opel to help facilitate its implementation. To identify aspects of the framework that require refinement, we applied it across a diverse range of clinical cases from multiple pediatric specialties. In doing so, several questions surfaced that deserve further scrutiny: (1) For which medical decisions is consideration of SDM required? (2) What is considered medically reasonable when there is variability in standard practice? (3) Can an option that is not consistent with standard practice still be medically reasonable? (4) How should public health implications be factored into SDM? (5) How should variability in preference sensitivity be approached? (6) How should the developing autonomy of adolescents be integrated into SDM?; and (7) How should SDM address parental decisional burden for emotionally charged decisions? We conduct a brief analysis of each question raised to illustrate key areas for future research., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Objective: This qualitative study examines surgical consultation as a social process and assesses its alignment with assumptions of the shared decision-making (SDM) model., Summary of Background Data: SDM stresses the importance of patient preferences and rigorous discussion of therapeutic risks/benefits based on these preferences. However, empirical studies have highlighted discrepancies between SDM and realities of surgical decision making. Qualitative research can inform understanding of the decision-making process and allow for granular assessment of the nature and causes of these discrepancies., Methods: We observed consultations between 3 general surgeons and 45 patients considering undergoing 1 of 2 preference-sensitive elective operations: (1) hernia repair, or (2) cholecystectomy. These patients and surgeons also participated in semi-structured interviews., Results: By the time of the consultation, patients and surgeons were predisposed toward certain decisions by preceding events occurring elsewhere. During the visit, surgeons had differential ability to arbitrate surgical intervention and construct the severity of patients' conditions. These upstream dynamics frequently displaced the centrality of the risk/benefit-based consent discussion., Conclusion: The influence of events preceding consultation suggests that decision-making models should account for broader spatiotemporal spans. Given surgeons' authority to define patients' conditions and control service provision, SDM may be premised on an overestimation of patients' power to alter the course of decision making once in a specialist's office. Considering the subordinate role of the risk/benefit discussion in many surgical decisions, it will be important to study if and how the social process of decision making is altered by SDM-oriented decision aids that foreground this discussion.

Background: Patient requests for tests, treatments, or referrals occur frequently during primary care visits and pose challenges for clinicians to address, but little is known about patient characteristics that may predict requests., Objective: To identify patient characteristics associated with a higher rate of patient requests during primary care visits., Design, Setting, and Sample: Cross-sectional analyses of data from 1141 adult patients attending 1319 visits with 56 primary care physicians (including 45 resident and 11 faculty physicians) in an academic family medicine practice., Measurements: Postvisit patient surveys including measures of patient requests for tests, prescriptions, and referrals; sociodemographics; mental and physical health status; symptom bother or worry (3-item scale; range, 3 to 15; Cronbach's α = 0.83); global life satisfaction; medical skepticism; and Five Factor Model personality traits., Results: Patients made 1 or more requests in 867 visits (65.7%). In multivariate analyses of the within-visit request count, the following patient variables were statistically significantly associated with a higher rate of requests: age in years (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.01]), increased symptom bother or worry (IRR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.08]), a more extroverted personality (IRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.08]), greater life satisfaction (IRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02]), and any prior encounter with the visit physician (IRR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32])., Conclusions: Primary care physicians should expect a greater frequency of requests from older patients, patients with greater symptoms bother or worry, more extroverted patients, patients with greater global life satisfaction, and patients with whom they have had prior visits., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2019 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Objective: Care communication about obesity needs to respond to the complex biopsychosocial processes that affect weight and health. The collaborative deliberation model conceptualizes interpersonal work that underpins empathic communication and shared decision-making. The goal of this study was to elucidate how primary care practitioners can use the model to achieve shared obesity assessment and care planning., Methods: This qualitative study used direct observation of clinical encounters with twenty patients with obesity sampled for maximum variation in context, semi-structured patient and provider interviews, patient journals and two follow-up interviews over eight weeks. Themes were compared to the original model., Results: We identified five processes that may be relevant for collaborative deliberation about obesity in addition to the original model: (1) Exploring the story, (2) Reframing the story, (3) Co-constructing a new story, (4) Choosing a priority, and (5) Experimenting with alternatives., Conclusions: We propose an enhanced collaborative deliberation model for obesity that describes the interpersonal work needed before and after deliberation about preferences and courses of action., Practice Implications: The enhanced model can support clinicians in achieving meaningful conversations about obesity and complex chronic disease resulting in care plans that are responsive to and achievable in the patient's lifeworld., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To construct a model of shared decision making (SDM) about cancer treatment by conducting an extensive consultation of stakeholders, informed by the literature., Methods: We interviewed 76 stakeholders: cancer patients, potential future patients, oncologists, nurses, and SDM-researchers. We asked, "If I say 'Doctors and patients making decisions together about cancer treatment,' what does this make you think about?" Ideas were further solicited by presenting 19 cards each describing a possible SDM element. Interviews were inductively coded and analysed, and the emerging themes were integrated into a model., Results: The model that was based on participants' views assigns specific roles in SDM to both oncologists and patients. Oncologists determine possible treatments, emphasise the importance of patients' opinion, explain treatment options, get to know patients, guide patients, and provide treatment recommendations. Patients ask questions, express thoughts and feelings, consider options, offer opinions, and decide or delegate decisions to oncologists. Outside consultations, patients search for information, prepare questions, and consider options., Conclusions: Next to oncologists' role, cancer patients also have a clear role in SDM about cancer treatment, during and outside consultations. Patients should receive the support they need to fulfil this requirement., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Although recognized as best practice, regular integration of shared decision-making (SDM) approaches between patients and oncologists remains an elusive goal. It is clear that usable, feasible, and practical tools are needed to drive increased SDM in oncology. To address this goal, we convened a multidisciplinary collaborative inclusive of experts across the health-care delivery ecosystem to identify key principles in designing and testing processes to promote SDM in routine oncology practice. In this commentary, we describe 3 best practices for addressing challenges associated with implementing SDM that emerged from a multidisciplinary collaborative: (1) engagement of diverse stakeholders who have interest in SDM, (2) development and validation of an evidence-based SDM tool grounded within an established conceptual framework, and (3) development of the necessary roadmap and consideration of the infrastructure needed for engendering patient engagement in decision-making. We believe these 3 principles are critical to the success of creating SDM tools to be utilized both within and outside of clinical practice. We are optimistic that shared use across settings will support adoption of this tool and overcome barriers to implementing SDM within busy clinical workflows. Ultimately, we hope that this work will offer new perspectives on what is important to patients and provide an important impetus for leveraging patient preferences and values in decision-making.

Objectives: To study patients' perspectives about the role of the doctor-patient relationship in promoting the resilience process., Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 chronic pain patients. Using open-ended questions, the interviews explored aspects of the doctor-patient relationship that impacted the patients' perceptions of their resilience. Thematic analysis built on an inductive, adaptive approach to data coding was employed to organize a representation of key factors affecting resilience., Results: The themes emerging from the interviews inform us about how the different aspects of the doctor-patient relationship can promote patient resilience in chronic pain. Three main themes emerged: the doctor providing psychological support, promoting patients' health literacy related to chronic pain and its treatment, and empowering the patients to cooperate in finding the right treatment. This fosters patients' direct outcomes (feeling validated, health literate, and empowered), which, in turn, lead to adaptive coping responses and day-to-day disease management. These direct outcomes are crucial for patients to maintain socially and personally meaningful activities and their functional (physical) capacity., Discussion: A doctor-patient relationship following the precepts of the patient-centered care is a significant resource that can lead to increased patient resilience. Thus, future interventions promoting patient resilience might consider addressing the doctor-patient relationship.

Objectives: Activity of daily living stages and instrumental activity of daily living stages demonstrated ordered associations with mortality, risk of hospitalization, and receipt of recommended care. This article explores the associations of stages with the following three dimensions of patient activation: self-care efficacy, patient-doctor communication, and health-information seeking. We hypothesized that higher activity of daily living and instrumental activity of daily living stages (greater limitation) are associated with a lower level of patient activation., Methods: Patient activation factors were derived from the 2004 and 2009 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. In this cross-sectional study (N = 8981), the associations of activity limitation stages with patient activation factors were assessed in latent factor models., Results: Greater activity limitation was in general inversely associated with self-efficacy, patient-doctor communication, and health information seeking, even after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. For instance, the mean of self-care efficacy across activity of daily living stages I-IV (mild, moderate, severe, and complete limitation) compared with stage 0 (no limitation) decreased significantly by 0.17, 0.29, 0.34, and 0.60, respectively. Covariates associated with suboptimal patient activation were also identified., Discussion: Our study identified multiple opportunities to improve patient activation, including providing support for older adults with physical impairments, at socioeconomic disadvantages, or with psychological or cognitive impairment.

Consultations for patients with chronic mental health conditions are conceived as meetings of experts: medical and experiential, respectively. Treatment decisions, in these terms, become a joint responsibility rather than handed down ex-cathedra. One resource for constituting decisions as 'shared' is the treatment recommendation - decisional authority can be invoked through its design. There is concern that people diagnosed with schizophrenia are infrequently involved in treatment decisions. However, the methods psychiatrists actually employ remain undefined. This article advances our understanding of psychiatric practice by mapping alternative methods used by psychiatrists to recommend treatment in outpatient consultations in situ. First, we unpack the types of treatments psychiatrists recommend. Then, we ask how psychiatrists recommend treatment? Applying a novel coding taxonomy, informed by the conversation analytic principle that recommendations represent different social actions, we identify the distribution of alternative formulations for psychiatrists' recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, and offers). We also propose one linguistic dimension, personal pronouns, on which recommending actions often depend, implicative for who is projected as 'accountable' for the decision. Finally, we examine the relationship between action type and patient uptake: is a particular type of recommendation more likely to attract acceptance/resistance from patients? And how does this relate to decisional accountability?

This paper focuses on a recurrent practice observed in UK primary care data - how physicians use pre-recommendations: action sequences that when initiated post-diagnosis are recognisably preliminary to the drug treatment recommendations that they contingently project. Data are drawn from recorded primary care consultations collected in England. Pre-recommendations consist of physician requests for information about prior medicines such as, What've you tried taking? or Have you taken anything so far? Patient responses subsequently shape the first part of the base treatment recommendation pair. These preliminaries can help physicians manage potential obstacles to patient acceptance: by avoiding prescribing something a patient is already taking, or has tried and found to be ineffective, and by accommodating concerns such as side effects or practical barriers to acceptance. Pre-recommendations are a strategy for convincing/persuading whilst allowing physicians to avoid making an ill-fitted recommendation that might be resisted or rejected as unwanted or unnecessary.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore clinicians' experiences of implementing goal setting with community dwelling clients with acquired brain injury, to develop a goal setting practice framework., Method: Grounded theory methodology was employed. Clinicians, representing six disciplines across seven services, were recruited and interviewed until theoretical saturation was achieved. A total of 22 clinicians were interviewed., Results: A theoretical framework was developed to explain how clinicians support clients to actively engage in goal setting in routine practice. The framework incorporates three phases: a needs identification phase, a goal operationalisation phase, and an intervention phase. Contextual factors, including personal and environmental influences, also affect how clinicians and clients engage in this process. Clinicians use additional strategies to support clients with impaired self-awareness. These include structured communication and metacognitive strategies to operationalise goals. For clients with emotional distress, clinicians provide additional time and intervention directed at new identity development., Conclusions: The goal setting practice framework may guide clinician's understanding of how to engage in client-centred goal setting in brain injury rehabilitation. There is a predilection towards a client-centred goal setting approach in the community setting, however, contextual factors can inhibit implementation of this approach. Implications for Rehabilitation The theoretical framework describes processes used to develop achievable client-centred goals with people with brain injury. Building rapport is a core strategy to engage clients with brain injury in goal setting. Clients with self-awareness impairment benefit from additional metacognitive strategies to participate in goal setting. Clients with emotional distress may need additional time for new identity development.

There are several studies on patients' preference for same-gender physicians, especially female preference for same-gender gynecologists. Data regarding the preferences of urology patients, of whom the majority are males, are scarce. The objective of this study is to assess provider gender preference among urology patients. One hundred and nineteen consecutive men (mean age 57.6 years) who attended a urology clinic in one university-affiliated medical center were prospectively enrolled. A self-accomplished 26-item anonymous questionnaire was used to assess patients' preferences in selecting their urologist. Of the 119 patients, 51 (42.8%) preferred a male urologist. Patients exhibited more same-gender preference for physical examination (38.3%), or urological surgery (35.3%), than for consultation (24.4%). Most patients (97%) preferred a same-gender urologist because they felt less embarrassed. Four patient characteristics were identified to be significantly associated with preference for a male urologist: religious status, country of origin, marital status, and a prior management by a male urologist. Of these, religious status was the most predictive parameter for choosing a male urologist. The three most important factors that affected actual selection, however, were professional skills (84.6%), clinical experience (72.4%), and medical knowledge (61%), rather than physician gender per se. Many male patients express gender bias regarding their preference for urologist. However, professional skills of the clinician are considered to be more important factors when it comes to actually making a choice.

The diffusion of the Web 2.0 has made it possible for patients to exchange on online health communities, defined as computer-mediated communities dedicated to health topics, wherein members can build relationships with other members. It is now acknowledged that online health communities provide users not only with medical information but also with social support with no time or geographical boundaries. However, in spite of their considerable interest, there is still a paucity of research as to how online health communities alter the patient-physician relationship. This research aims at filling this gap and examines how online health communities, while providing users with computer-mediated social support and empowerment, impact the patient-physician relationship. Six hypotheses are proposed and tested. A survey was developed and 328 responses were collected from online patient groups in Canada in 2016. The data were analysed using structural equation modelling. All but one hypothesis are validated. The results show that user computer-mediated social support positively influences user empowerment and participation during the consultation, which in turn determines user commitment to the relationship with the physician. Importantly and contrary to our expectations, user empowerment is found to be significantly but negatively related to user commitment with the physician.

Aims and Objectives: To identify and describe patients' experiences and care needs throughout the diagnostic phase of an integrated brain cancer pathway., Background: A malignant brain tumour is a devastating diagnosis, which may cause psychical symptoms and cognitive deficits. Studies have shown that the shock of the diagnosis, combined with the multiple symptoms, affects patients' ability to understand information and express needs of care and support. Unmet needs have been reported within this group of patients; however, the experiences and care needs of patients going through the diagnostic phase of a standardised integrated brain cancer pathway have not previously been explored., Design: A case study design was used to provide detailed information of the complex needs of patients being diagnosed with a malignant brain tumour., Methods: Research interviews and direct participant observation of four patients during hospital admission, brain surgery and discharge were conducted in a Danish university hospital. Systematic text condensation was used to analyse the data material., Results: Four major themes were identified: information needs, balancing hope and reality while trying to perceive the unknown reality of brain cancer, not knowing what to expect and participants' perceptions of the relationship with the healthcare providers. The analysis revealed that participants were in risk of having unmet information needs and that contextual factors seemed to cause fragmented care that led to feelings of uncertainty and loss of control., Conclusions: Brain tumour patients have complex care needs and experience a particular state of vulnerability during the diagnostic phase. Through personal relationships based on trust with skilled healthcare providers, participants experienced an existential recognition and alleviation of emotional distress., Relevance to Clinical Practice: Patients receiving a brain tumour diagnosis experience unmet care needs in several areas during their hospital stay. There is a need for interventions from healthcare providers., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Objectives: Despite increasing attention to the use of shared decision making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED), little is known about ED patients' perspectives regarding this practice. We sought to explore the use of SDM from the perspectives of ED patients, focusing on what affects patients' desired level of involvement and what barriers and facilitators patients find most relevant to their experience., Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of ED patients or their proxies at two sites. An interview guide was developed from existing literature and expert consensus and based on a framework underscoring the importance of both knowledge and power. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process by a three-person coding team. Emergent themes were identified, discussed, and organized., Results: Twenty-nine patients and proxies participated. The mean age of participants was 56 years (range, 20 to 89 years), and 13 were female. Participants were diverse in regard to race/ethnicity, education, number of previous ED visits, and presence of chronic conditions. All participants wanted some degree of involvement in decision making. Participants who made statements suggesting high self-efficacy and those who expressed mistrust of the health care system or previous negative experiences wanted a greater degree of involvement. Facilitators to involvement included familiarity with the decision at hand, physicians' good communication skills, and clearly delineated options. Some participants felt that their own relative lack of knowledge, compared to that of the physicians, made their involvement inappropriate or unwanted. Many participants had no expectation for SDM and although they did want involvement when asked explicitly, they were otherwise likely to defer to physicians without discussion. Many did not recognize opportunities for SDM in their clinical care., Conclusions: This exploration of ED patients' perceptions of SDM suggests that most patients want some degree of involvement in medical decision making but more proactive engagement of patients by clinicians is often needed. Further research should examine these issues in a larger and more representative population., (© 2018 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

AimThe aim of this study was to explore elderly patients' and general practitioners' (GPs') perceptions of communication about polypharmacy, medication safety and approaches for empowerment., Background: To manage polypharmacy, GPs need to know patients' real medication consumption. However, previous research has shown that patients do not always volunteer all information about their medication regimen, for example, such as the intake of over-the-counter medication or the alteration or discontinuation of prescribed medication., Method: A qualitative interview study including patients of at least 65 years old with polypharmacy (⩾5 medications) and their GPs in a German Primary Healthcare Centre. The transcripts from the semi-structured interviews (n=6 with patients; n=3 with GPs) were analysed using a framework analytical approach.FindingsWe identified three themes: differing medication plans: causes?; dialogue concerning medication: whose responsibility?; supporting patients' engagement: how? While GPs stated that patients do not always report or might even conceal information, all patients reported that they could speak openly about everything with their GPs. In this context, trust might act as a double-edged sword, as it can promote open communication but also prevent patients from asking questions. Both GPs and patients could name very few ways in which patients could be supported to become more informed and active in communication concerning polypharmacy and medication safety., Conclusion: This study shows that patients' awareness of the significance of their active role in addressing polypharmacy needs to be increased. This includes understanding that trusting the doctor does not preclude asking questions or seeking more information. Thus, interventions which improve patients' communication skills and address specific issues of polypharmacy, particularly in elderly patients, should be designed. GPs might support patients by 'inviting' their contribution.

Purpose: The purpose of this article was to examine the relative importance of patients' self-advocacy and perceived physicians' advocacy for impacting patients' satisfaction in terms of physician communication and physician-patient relationship. We also examine the influence of physicians' emotional support and patients' demographic as well as health characteristics on patients' satisfaction., Sample: Our sample includes interviews with 806 community dwelling older adults (mean age =77.82 years, SD=8.41). The sample included residents of a large retirement community in Clearwater, FL, USA. Respondents were also included from representative samples of older adults living in Orlando and Miami, FL, USA, and Cleveland, OH, USA., Methods and Results: Using multiple hierarchical regression analyses, we found that patients' age and functional limitations were negatively associated with their care satisfaction. When compared with White patients, African-American patients were less satisfied with their physicians while Latino patients expressed greater satisfaction with their medical care. We found limited evidence of patients' self-advocacy and such advocacy did not serve as a significant predictor of satisfaction with physicians. In contrast, patients' perception of physicians' readiness to act as patient advocates was a significant predictor of patients' satisfaction. Emotional support of physicians was also associated with patients' satisfaction., Conclusion: These findings raise questions about consumer empowerment among older adults and underscore their desire for and appreciation of physicians' advocacy. Findings are discussed in the context of power imbalance between elderly patients and their doctors., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Patients with cancer often do not have an accurate perception of their prognosis and the risks and side effects associated with potential treatments. Research has highlighted several reasons for these information gaps. Where more than one medically acceptable treatment is available, doctors may have a strong preference for a particular treatment option and steer the treatment decision by skewed information disclosure. Also, fear of the nocebo effect may prevent the provision of balanced information on side effects. Knowledge of prognosis is essential for making well-informed treatment decisions, but doctors may be reluctant to discuss limited life expectancy with their patients because they fear loss of hope and the deterioration of the doctor-patient relationship. Communication on these difficult subjects should be better integrated into medical training.