Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Peter A Ubel

Publications and source records attributed to Peter A Ubel.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

What's time got to do with it? Inattention to duration in interpretation of survival graphs.

Reports of randomized clinical trials often use survival curves to summarize clinical outcomes over time and graphically demonstrate evidence of treatment effectiveness. Survival curves can also be used in patient communications to display how health risks accumulate over time. In a randomized survey experiment, administered online, we tested whether people viewing survival curves appropriately adjust their risk perceptions to account for the duration shown. Internet users (N= 864) were recruited from a demographically balanced U.S. panel. Participants read about a hypothetical disease and then viewed one of four survival graphs that displayed mortality risks with and without treatment. Survival graphs showed either a visually large or visually small difference between treatments and were labeled to represent either 5-year or 15-year risk statistics. Participants then provided ratings of disease seriousness, as well as treatment effectiveness for each possible treatment. Variations in ratings corresponded more with visual dissimilarity than with changes in the statistical risk exhibited, with participants perceiving somewhat greater disease seriousness and significant differences in treatment effectiveness in large visual difference graphs. We conclude that when people interpret survival curves, they often fail to sufficiently account for the timeframe represented and perceive more risk and larger differences when identical risks are displayed over longer periods of time. We recommend that all presentations of survival graphics, whether to patients, physicians, or scientists, emphasize duration information (e.g., in the title) and remind readers that attending to graph axis labels is the only way to pierce these visual illusions.

Data Collection↗
PubMed2004

Lying to insurance companies: the desire to deceive among physicians and the public.

This study examines the public's and physicians' willingness to support deception of insurance companies in order to obtain necessary healthcare services and how this support varies based on perceptions of physicians' time pressures. Based on surveys of 700 prospective jurors and 1617 physicians, the public was more than twice as likely as physicians to sanction deception (26%versus 11%) and half as likely to believe that physicians have adequate time to appeal coverage decisions (22%versus 59%). The odds of public support for deception compared to that of physicians rose from 2.48 to 4.64 after controlling for differences in time perception. These findings highlight the ethical challenge facing physicians and patients in balancing patient advocacy with honesty in the setting of limited societal resources.

Deception↗
PubMed2004

Altruism, incentives, and organ donation: attitudes of the transplant community.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the attitudes of the transplant community toward the current policy of altruistic organ donation and 6 alternative policies offering incentives to the donor family. METHODS: Two hundred forty-nine transplant surgeons, 143 transplant coordinators, and 134 critical-care nurses rated the moral appropriateness and success of the current policy of altruistic donation, rated the moral appropriateness of the alternative policies, judged whether donation would increase or decrease under each alternative policy, and decided whether each alternative policy should be put into effect. RESULTS: All 3 professions believed the current policy of altruistic organ donation to be morally appropriate and most of the alternative policies to be morally appropriate or morally neutral. All 3 professions believed the current policy to be at best only moderately successful and judged most or all of the alternative policies to be likely to increase donation. All 3 professions favored implementing a policy offering donor recognition; approximately one half of the surgeons and one half of the coordinators also advocated implementing a policy offering 1500 US dollars toward funeral expenses. In all 3 professions, respondents' decisions to implement the alternative policies were more frequently related to those policies' moral appropriateness than to their likelihood of increasing organ donation. CONCLUSIONS: Specific incentives varied in their acceptability to the transplant community. Attitudes of the transplant community toward incentives were not in accord with published criticisms of incentives.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Do unmet expectations for specific tests, referrals, and new medications reduce patients' satisfaction?

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care requires clinicians to recognize and act on patients' expectations. However, relatively little is known about the specific expectations patients bring to the primary care visit. OBJECTIVE: To describe the nature and prevalence of patients' specific expectations for tests, referrals, and new medications, and to examine the relationship between fulfillment of these expectations and patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: VA general medicine clinic. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty-three adult male outpatients seeing their primary care provider for a scheduled visit. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-six percent of patients reported at least 1 expectation for a test, referral, or new medication. Thirty-one percent had 1 expectation, while 25% had 2 or more expectations. Expectations were evenly distributed among tests, referrals, and new medications (37%, 30%, and 33%, respectively). Half of the patients who expressed an expectation did not receive one or more of the desired tests, referrals, or new medications. Nevertheless, satisfaction was very high (median of 1.5 for visit-specific satisfaction on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 representing "excellent"). Satisfaction was not related to whether expectations were met or unmet, except that patients who did not receive desired medications reported lower satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' expectations are varied and often vague. Clinicians trying to implement the values of patient-centered care must be prepared to elicit, identify, and address many expectations.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

Support for physician deception of insurance companies among a sample of Philadelphia residents.

BACKGROUND: Some physicians seem to be willing to sanction deception of insurance companies. Little is known about public attitudes regarding this practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess public attitudes regarding physician deception of insurance companies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey using clinical vignettes. SETTING: Philadelphia County Courthouse, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 700 prospective jurors. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were asked whether, in response to restriction of health care, a physician should 1) accept restriction, 2) appeal restriction, or 3) misrepresent a patient's condition to obtain the desired service. The proportion of respondents reporting that the physician should misrepresent a patient's condition was determined. RESULTS: 26% of respondents sanctioned deception, 70% supported appealing, and 4% supported accepting the insurance company decision. Among the 27% of respondents believing physicians have inadequate time to appeal coverage decisions, 50% sanctioned deception. CONCLUSIONS: Sanctioning of deception was substantial in this sample of prospective jurors. Preferences regarding insurance company deception are related to perceptions of physician workload and may further pressure physicians struggling to balance advocacy with honesty.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

The influence of cost-effectiveness information on physicians' cancer screening recommendations.

Physicians are increasingly faced with choices in which one screening strategy is both more effective and more expensive than another. One way to make such choices is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the more costly strategy over the less costly one. However, little is known about how cost-effectiveness information influences physicians' screening decisions. We surveyed 900 primary care US physicians, and presented each with a hypothetical cancer-screening scenario. We created three familiar screening scenarios, involving cervical, colon, and breast cancer. We also created three unfamiliar screening scenarios. Physicians were randomized to receive one of nine questionnaires, each containing one screening scenario. Three questionnaires posed one of the familiar screening scenarios without cost-effectiveness information, three posed one of the familiar scenarios with cost-effectiveness information, and three posed one of the unfamiliar scenarios with cost-effectiveness information. The cost-effectiveness information for familiar scenarios was drawn from the medical literature. The cost-effectiveness information for unfamiliar scenarios was fabricated to match that of a corresponding familiar scenario. In all questionnaires, physicians were asked what screening alternative they would recommend. A total of 560 physicians responded (65%). For familiar scenarios, providing cost-effectiveness information had at most a small influence on physicians' screening recommendations; it reduced the proportion of physicians recommending annual Pap smears (p=0.003), but did not significantly alter the aggressiveness of colon cancer and breast cancer screening (both p's<0.1). For all three unfamiliar scenarios, physicians were significantly less likely to recommend expensive screening strategies than in corresponding familiar scenarios (all p's<0.001). Physicians' written explanations revealed a number of factors that moderated the influence of cost-effectiveness information on their screening recommendations. Providing physicians with cost-effectiveness information had only a moderate influence on their screening recommendations for cervical, colon, and breast cancer. Significantly, fewer physicians recommended aggressive screening for unfamiliar cancers than for familiar ones, despite similar cost-effectiveness. Physicians are relatively reluctant to abandon common screening strategies, even when they learn that they are expensive, and are hesitant to adopt unfamiliar screening strategies, even when they learn that they are inexpensive.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public.

There is often a discrepancy between quality of life estimates from patients and the general public. These discrepancies are of concern to the disability community, who worry that the public does not understand how valuable life can be for people with disabilities; policy planners, who must decide whose quality of life estimates to use in economic analysis; and practitioners and patients facing difficult medical decisions, who may have to worry that people have difficulty imagining unfamiliar health states. We outline several factors that may contribute to these discrepancies. Discrepancies might occur because patients and the public interpret health state descriptions differently--for example, making different assumptions about the recency of onset of the health state, or about the presence of comorbidities. Discrepancies might also arise if patients adapt to illness and the public does not predict this adaptation; because of response shift in how people use quality of life scales; because of a focusing illusion whereby people forget to consider obvious aspects of unfamiliar health states; because of contrast effects, whereby negative life events make people less bothered by less severe negative life events; and because of different vantage points, with patients viewing their illness in terms of the benefits that would result from regaining health, while the public views the illness in terms of the costs associated with losing good health. Decisions about whose values to measure for the purposes of economic analyses, and how to measure discrepancies, should take these potential contributing factors into account.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed2003

When do patients and their physicians agree on diabetes treatment goals and strategies, and what difference does it make?

BACKGROUND: For patients with chronic illnesses, it is hypothesized that effective patient-provider collaboration contributes to improved patient self-care by promoting greater agreement on patient-specific treatment goals and strategies. However, this hypothesis has not been tested in actual encounters of patients with their own physicians. OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which patients with type 2 diabetes agree with their primary care providers (PCPs) on diabetes treatment goals and strategies, the factors that predict agreement, and whether greater agreement is associated with better patient self-management of diabetes. DESIGN: One hundred twenty-seven pairs of patients and their PCPs in two health systems were surveyed about their top 3 diabetes treatment goals (desired outcomes) and strategies to meet those goals. Using several measures to evaluate agreement, we explored whether patient characteristics, such as education and attitudes toward treatment, and patient-provider interaction styles, such as shared decision making, were associated with greater agreement on treatment goals and strategies. We then examined whether agreement was associated with higher patient assessments of their diabetes care self-efficacy and self-management. RESULTS: Overall, agreement on top treatment goals and strategies was low (all kappa were less than 0.40). In multivariable analyses, however, patients with more education, greater belief in the efficacy of their diabetes treatment, and who shared in treatment decision making with their providers were more likely to agree with their providers on treatment goals or strategies. Similarly, physician reports of having discussed more content areas of diabetes self-care were associated with greater agreement on treatment strategies. In turn, greater agreement on treatment goals and strategies was associated both with higher patient diabetes care self-efficacy and assessments of their diabetes self-management. CONCLUSION: Although patients and their PCPs in general had poor agreement on goals and strategies for managing diabetes, agreement was associated with higher patient self-efficacy and assessments of their diabetes self-management. This supports the hypothesis that enhancing patient-provider agreement on both overall treatment goals and specific strategies to meet these goals may lead to improved patient outcomes.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Effectiveness of rheumatoid hand surgery: contrasting perceptions of hand surgeons and rheumatologists.

PURPOSE: Surgical management of rheumatoid hand diseases is controversial with large variation in practice pattern in the U.S. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the attitudes of hand surgeons and rheumatologists toward the effectiveness of rheumatoid hand surgery. METHODS: We designed a survey instrument to examine physicians' opinions about the effectiveness of different surgical treatments for rheumatoid hand deformities. The self-administered survey was mailed to a national random sample of 500 members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand and 500 members of the American College of Rheumatology. RESULTS: Of survey responders, 82.5% of hand surgeons versus 34.1% of rheumatologists believe metacarpophalangeal joint arthroplasty improves hand function; 93.2% and 54.6%, respectively, believe prophylactic extensor tenosynovectomy prevents tendon rupture; and 52.5% and 12.6%, respectively, believe small joint synovectomy delays joint destruction. CONCLUSIONS: Rheumatologists view rheumatoid hand surgery as significantly less effective than do hand surgeons, which highlights the disagreements between the 2 specialties about the management of this clinical problem.

Arthritis, Rheumatoid↗
PubMed2003

Setting organ allocation priorities: should we care what the public cares about?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the nature of public preferences in the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. DESIGN: A qualitative study based upon the transcripts of four focus groups. SETTING: Derby, Derbyshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two members of the public in the Derby locality, recruited to one of four focus groups through local community groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The views of focus group members as to the importance (or otherwise) of several potential discriminating factors which could be used in the prioritization of patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation were ascertained. The factors included were expected posttransplantation prognosis, the age of the patient, whether the patient was personally responsible for their illness, the time spent on the waiting list, re-transplantation or primary transplant and the social background of the patient. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Group members explored the criteria from a number of perspectives, and made some unexpected linkages between the criteria and wider moral principles. They did not come to firm conclusions about the relative desirability of the criteria, but their approach was notably flexible and thoughtful, with the exception of a few instances where they appeared to resort to arguments based on what is 'obvious' and 'natural'. The results of these discussions suggest that members of the public would be able and willing to respond positively to a more open and consultative system of donor liver prioritization than exists presently within the UK.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Don't ask, don't tell: a change in medical student attitudes after obstetrics/gynecology clerkships toward seeking consent for pelvic examinations on an anesthetized patient.

OBJECTIVE: We explore whether the completion of an obstetrics/gynecology clerkship is associated with a decline in the importance that students place on seeking permission from the patient before conducting a pelvic examination while she is anesthetized. STUDY DESIGN: Students at five Philadelphia area medical schools (n = 401 students) were asked how important it would be for a patient to be told that a medical student will perform a pelvic examination while she is anesthetized. We examined associations between the completion of an obstetrics/gynecology clerkship and attitudes toward consent with the use of linear regression to adjust for gender and the total amount of clerkship experience. RESULTS: After the data were controlled for gender and the total number of clerkships that had been completed, we found that students who had completed an obstetrics/gynecology clerkship thought that consent was significantly less important than did those students who had not completed a clerkship (P =.01). CONCLUSION: To avoid this decline in attitudes toward seeking consent, clerkship directors should ensure that students perform examinations only after patients have given consent explicitly.

Anesthesia, General↗
PubMed2003

Incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios: will physicians make a distinction?

Physicians are increasingly asked to use cost-effectiveness information when evaluating alternative health care interventions. Little is known about how the way such information is presented can influence medical decision making. We presented physicians with hypothetical screening scenarios with multiple options, varying the type of cost-effectiveness ratios provided as well as whether the scenarios described cancer screening settings that were familiar or unfamiliar. Half the scenarios used average cost-effectiveness ratios, as commonly reported, calculating benefits and costs relative to a no-screening option. The other half used the preferred incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with each option's benefits and costs calculated relative to the next best alternative. Relative to average cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-effectiveness information significantly reduced preference for the most expensive screening strategies in two of three unfamiliar scenarios. No such difference was found for familiar scenarios, for which physicians likely have established practice patterns. These results suggest that, in unfamiliar settings, average cost-effectiveness ratios as reported in many analyses reported in the literature can hide the often high price for achieving incremental health care goals, potentially causing physicians to choose interventions with poor cost effectiveness.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2003

Misperceptions about beta-blockers and diuretics: a national survey of primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Based on a series of clinical trials showing no difference in the effectiveness or tolerability of most major classes of antihypertensive medications, the Joint National Commission on High Blood Pressure Treatment recommends that physicians prescribe beta-blockers or diuretics as initial hypertensive therapy unless there are compelling indications for another type of medication. Nevertheless, many physicians continue to favor more expensive medications like angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and calcium channel blockers as first line agents. The persistent use of these agents raises questions as to whether physicians perceive ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers to be better than beta-blockers and diuretics. METHODS: We surveyed 1,200 primary care physicians in 1997, and another 500 primary care physicians in 2000, and asked them to estimate the relative effectiveness and side effects of 4 classes of medication in treating a hypothetical patient with uncomplicated hypertension: ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics. In addition, we asked them to indicate whether they ever provided free samples of hypertension medications to their patients. RESULTS: Perceptions of the relative effectiveness and side effects of the 4 classes of hypertension medications did not significantly change over the 3 years, nor did prescription recommendations. Physicians perceive that diuretics are less effective at lowering blood pressure than the other 3 classes (P <.001). They also perceive that beta-blockers are less tolerated than the other 3 classes (P <.001). In a multivariate model, perceptions of effectiveness and tolerability displayed significant associations with prescription preference independent of background variables. The only other variable to contribute significantly to the model was provision of free medication samples to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous clinical trials showing no difference in the effectiveness or side-effect profiles of these 4 classes of drugs, most physicians believed that diuretics were less effective and beta-blockers were less tolerated than other medications. Moreover, their prescription practices were associated with their provision of free samples provided by pharmaceutical representatives, even after adjusting for other demographic characteristics. Efforts to increase physicians' prescribing of beta-blockers and diuretics may need to be directed at overcoming misunderstandings about the effectiveness and tolerability of these medicines.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2003

When money is saved by reducing healthcare costs, where do US primary care physicians think the money goes?

BACKGROUND: Physician willingness to reduce medical costs is mixed. Some physicians might be unwilling to reduce medical costs because they are concerned about where the savings would go. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether primary care physicians might be less willing to choose a less expensive, less effective cancer screening alternative if they believe that the money saved goes to insurance companies. DESIGN: Anonymous mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 865 US primary care physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to one of several clinical vignettes presenting a choice between a less expensive, less effective cancer screening option and a more expensive, more effective alternative and responses to where physicians thought the savings might go if they chose the cheaper alternative. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of physicians chose the most expensive screening alternative. In aggregate, physicians responded that more of any money saved would go to the managers or owners of insurance companies than to increased clinical services or reduced insurance premiums. Physicians choosing the more expensive screening test were more likely to believe that money saved from choosing the less expensive test would go to insurance company profits and salaries rather than to increased clinical services or reduced premiums (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although US primary care physicians vary in where they think money saved in healthcare goes, most believe that more of it goes to the salaries of insurance company executives and the profits of insurance company owners than to improved clinical services or reduced premiums. The more physicians believe that this is where the money goes, the less willing they are to reduce healthcare costs.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2003

Surgical management of the rheumatoid hand: consensus and controversy among rheumatologists and hand surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common cause of debilitating hand deformities, but management of these deformities is controversial, characterized by large variations in the surgical rates of common RA hand procedures. We conducted a national survey evaluating potential differences in physicians' management of RA hand deformities. METHODS: We mailed a survey instrument to a random national sample of 500 rheumatologists and 500 hand surgeons in the US. We evaluated physicians' attitudes toward the other specialties' management of common RA hand deformities and toward the indications for performing rheumatoid hand surgery. RESULTS: We found 70% of rheumatologists consider hand surgeons deficient in understanding the medical options available for RA, while 73.6% of surgeons believe rheumatologists have insufficient knowledge of the surgical options for RA hand diseases. However, 66.9% of surgeons and 79.5% of rheumatologists had no exposure to the other specialty during training. The 2 physician groups disagree significantly on the indications for commonly performed RA hand procedures such as metacarpophalangeal joint arthroplasty (p < 0.001), small joint synovectomy (p < 0.001), and distal ulna resection (p = 0.001). When physicians do not agree with others' management of RA hand deformities, only 62.4% of surgeons and 61.9% of rheumatologists relay their concern to the other specialty. CONCLUSION: Rheumatologists and hand surgeons have minimal interdisciplinary training, communicate with each other infrequently, and significantly disagree on the indications for RA hand surgery. Research must focus on the surgical outcomes of RA hand procedures and on improving communication between rheumatologists and hand surgeons.

Arthritis, Rheumatoid↗