Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Arthur Hartz

Publications and source records attributed to Arthur Hartz.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Measuring fatigue severity in primary care patients.

OBJECTIVE: We developed a new instrument to measure fatigue that synthesized information from existing instruments. METHODS: 35 candidate items and 4 formats for a new fatigue scale were obtained from 15 previously developed instruments. A new scale was developed using factor analysis on a data set of 409 primary care patients and validated on a sample of 816 additional subjects. RESULTS: Different formats for obtaining information about a given fatigue item gave similar results. The new 11 item scale contained four subscales: cognitive, fatigue, energy and productivity. Correlations between the four subscales ranged from.49 to.66. Patients with a higher fatigue score were much more likely to have lower health status, greater depression and more somatic symptoms. CONCLUSION: This new instrument may be useful in primary care and epidemiological studies to screen and monitor patients for fatigue severity and type.

Adolescent↗

Methodologic issues in observational studies.

Assessment of orthopaedic treatments depends primarily on studies that analyze data abstracted from medical records or collected prospectively for research purposes. Because treatment in these studies is determined by the surgeon and the patient rather than controlled by the researcher, these studies are referred to as observational. Most orthopaedics research uses the observational study design because it is less expensive and more timely, includes more representative patients, and leaves medical decision-making under the control of the physician and the patient. Biases associated with observational studies are influenced greatly by study design, methods of data collection, and statistical analysis. All observational studies should report factors influencing relevance (characteristics of patients, treatments, and outcome measures), and factors that influence validity (methods to obtain information and patient risk factors that may differ between treatments). Improved standards for reporting observational studies will facilitate the interpretation of results and the comparison of studies with conflicting results.

Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic↗

Physician surveys to assess customary care in medical malpractice cases.

OBJECTIVE: Physician experts hired and prepared by the litigants provide most information on standard of care for medical malpractice cases. Since this information may not be objective or accurate, we examined the feasibility and potential value of surveying community physicians to assess standard of care. DESIGN: Seven physician surveys of mutually exclusive groups of randomly selected physicians. SETTING: Iowa. PARTICIPANTS: Community and academic primary care physicians and relevant specialists. INTERVENTIONS: Included in each survey was a case vignette of a primary care malpractice case and key quotes from medical experts on each side of the case. Surveyed physicians were asked whether the patient should have been referred to a specialist for additional evaluation. The 7 case vignettes included 3 closed medical malpractice cases, 3 modifications of these cases, and 1 active case. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of 350 community primary care physicians and 51% of 216 community specialists completed the questionnaire. For 3 closed cases, 47%, 78%, and 88% of primary care physician respondents reported that they would have made a different referral decision than the defendant. Referral percentages were minimally affected by modifying patient outcome but substantially changed by modifying patient presentation. Most physicians, even those whose referral decisions were unusual, assumed that other physicians would make similar referral decisions. For each case, at least 65% of the primary care physicians disagreed with the testimony of one of the expert witnesses. In the active case, the response rate was high (71%), and the respondents did not withhold criticism of the defendant doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Randomly selected peer physicians are willing to participate in surveys of medical malpractice cases. The surveys can be used to construct the distribution of physician self-reported practice relevant to a particular malpractice case. This distribution may provide more information about customary practice or standard of care than the opinion of a single physician expert.

Expert Testimony↗