Suppr超能文献

患者是否会无意识地将更具侵入性的治疗建议与更好的护理联系起来?

Do Patients Unconsciously Associate Suggestions for More-invasive Treatment with Better Care?

机构信息

J. T. P. Kortlever, J. S. E. Ottenhoff, T. T. H. Tran, D. Ring, G. A. Vagner, M. D. Driscoll, Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School - The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.

出版信息

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Mar;477(3):514-522. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000608.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

It seems common for patients to conceive of care in physical terms, such as medications, injections, and procedures rather than advice and support. Clinicians often encounter patients who seem to prefer more testing or invasive treatments than expertise supports. We wanted to determine whether patients unconsciously associate suggestions for invasive treatments with better care.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do patients have (A) an implicit preference and (B) an expressed preference for a physical intervention (such as a pill, an injection, or surgery) over supportive care (such as reassurance and education)? (2) What factors are independently associated with both an implicit and an expressed preference for a physical intervention over supportive care? (3) Is there a relationship between a patient's implicit preference toward or away from a physical intervention and his/her expressed preference on that subject?

METHODS

In this study, we approached 129 new patients in a large urban area visiting one of 13 participating surgeons divided among six upper and lower extremity specialist offices. After excluding four patients based on our exclusion criteria, 125 patients (97%) completed a survey of demographics and their expressed preference about receiving either physical treatment or support. Treatment was defined as any surgery, procedure, injection, or medication; support was defined as reassurance, conversation, and education, but no physical treatment. Patients then completed the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to evaluate implicit preferences toward treatment or support. Although other IATs have been validated in numerous studies, the IAT used in this study was specifically made for this study. Scores (D scores) range from -2 to 2, where 0 indicates no implicit preference, positive scores indicate a preference toward receiving a physical treatment is good care, and negative scores indicate a preference toward receiving supportive care is good care. According to the original IAT, break points for a slight (± 0.15 to 0.35), moderate (± 0.35 to 0.65), and strong preference (± 0.65 to 2) were selected conservatively according to psychological conventions for effect size. Patients' mean age was 50 ± 15 years (range, 18-79 years) and 56 (45%) were men. The patients had a broad spectrum of upper and lower extremity musculoskeletal conditions, ranging from trigger finger to patellofemoral syndrome.

RESULTS

We found a slight implicit association of good care with support (D = -0.17 ± 0.62; range, -2 to 1.2) and an expressed preference for physical treatment (mean score = 0.63 ± 2.0; range, -3 to 3). Patients who received both physical and supportive treatment had greater implicit preference for good care, meaning supportive care, than patients receiving physical care alone (β = -0.42; 95% CI, -0.73 to -0.11; p = 0.008; semipartial R = 0.04; adjusted R full model = 0.13). Gender was independently associated with a greater expressed preference for physical treatment, with men expressing this preference more than women (β = 1.0; 95% CI, 0.31-1.7; p = 0.005; semipartial R = 0.06; adjusted R full model = 0.08); receiving supportive treatment was independently associated with more expressed preference for support (β = -0.98; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.23; p = 0.011; semipartial R = 0.05). An expressed preference for treatment was not associated with implicit preference (β = 0.01; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.06; p = 0.721).

CONCLUSIONS

Although surgeons may sometimes feel pressured toward physical treatments, based on our results and cutoff values, the average patient with upper or lower extremity symptoms has a slight implicit preference for supportive treatment and would likely be receptive.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prognostic study.

摘要

背景

患者倾向于将医疗视为药物、注射和手术等具体治疗手段,而不是建议和支持,这种情况似乎很常见。临床医生经常遇到似乎更倾向于接受更多检查或侵入性治疗而不是专业建议的患者。我们想确定患者是否无意识地将侵入性治疗建议与更好的护理联系起来。

目的

(1)患者是否(A)潜意识地、(B)明确地偏爱物理干预(如药物、注射或手术)而不是支持性护理(如安慰和教育)?(2)哪些因素与对物理干预和支持性护理的潜意识和明确偏好都相关?(3)患者对物理干预的潜意识偏好与其对该主题的明确偏好之间是否存在关系?

方法

在这项研究中,我们在一个大城市地区接触了 13 位参与手术的外科医生中的 6 位所负责的 13 个专科办公室中的 129 位新患者。在排除了基于我们排除标准的 4 位患者后,125 位患者(97%)完成了一份关于人口统计学特征和他们对接受物理治疗或支持的明确偏好的调查。治疗被定义为任何手术、程序、注射或药物;支持被定义为安慰、谈话和教育,但不包括物理治疗。然后,患者完成了内隐联想测验(IAT),以评估对治疗或支持的内隐偏好。虽然其他 IAT 已在多项研究中得到验证,但本研究中使用的 IAT 是专门为此研究制作的。分数(D 分数)范围从-2 到 2,其中 0 表示没有内隐偏好,正分数表示接受物理治疗是良好护理的偏好,负分数表示接受支持性护理是良好护理的偏好。根据原始 IAT,根据心理效应大小的惯例,选择了轻微(±0.15 至 0.35)、中度(±0.35 至 0.65)和强烈偏好(±0.65 至 2)的断点。患者的平均年龄为 50±15 岁(范围,18-79 岁),其中 56 位(45%)为男性。患者上肢和下肢肌肉骨骼疾病谱广泛,从扳机指到髌股综合征不等。

结果

我们发现支持性护理与良好护理之间存在轻微的内隐关联(D=-0.17±0.62;范围,-2 至 1.2)和对物理治疗的明确偏好(平均分数=0.63±2.0;范围,-3 至 3)。接受物理和支持性治疗的患者对支持性护理的良好护理的内隐偏好大于仅接受物理治疗的患者(β=-0.42;95%CI,-0.73 至-0.11;p=0.008;semipartial R=0.04;调整后的完整模型 R=0.13)。性别与对物理治疗的更大明确偏好独立相关,男性比女性更倾向于表达这种偏好(β=1.0;95%CI,0.31-1.7;p=0.005;semipartial R=0.06;调整后的完整模型 R=0.08);接受支持性治疗与对支持的更大明确偏好独立相关(β=-0.98;95%CI,-1.7 至-0.23;p=0.011;semipartial R=0.05)。明确的治疗偏好与内隐偏好无关(β=0.01;95%CI,-0.04 至 0.06;p=0.721)。

结论

尽管外科医生有时可能会因物理治疗而感到压力,但根据我们的结果和临界值,上肢或下肢症状的普通患者对内隐支持性治疗有轻微的偏好,可能会接受这种治疗。

证据水平

II 级,预后研究。

相似文献

1
Do Patients Unconsciously Associate Suggestions for More-invasive Treatment with Better Care?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Mar;477(3):514-522. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000608.
3
A Shadow of Doubt: Is There Implicit Bias Among Orthopaedic Surgery Faculty and Residents Regarding Race and Gender?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2024 Jul 1;482(7):1145-1155. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002933. Epub 2024 Jan 12.
4
Estimating Implicit and Explicit Gender Bias Among Health Care Professionals and Surgeons.
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Jul 3;2(7):e196545. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6545.
5
Medical services and associated costs vary widely among surgeons treating patients with hand osteoarthritis.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Mar;473(3):1111-7. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3912-3. Epub 2014 Aug 30.
6
Surgeon Implicit Association of Women With Supportive Roles in Medicine.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2024 Jan 1;32(1):e26-e32. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00082. Epub 2023 Sep 6.
7
Does Intolerance of Uncertainty Affect the Magnitude of Limitations or Pain Intensity?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Feb;478(2):381-388. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001042.
9
Patients With Limited Health Literacy Ask Fewer Questions During Office Visits With Hand Surgeons.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 May;475(5):1291-1297. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-5140-5. Epub 2016 Oct 28.
10
Surgeons Have an Implicit Preference for Specific Disease Over Nonspecific Illness.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2024 Apr 1;482(4):648-655. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002905. Epub 2023 Nov 2.

引用本文的文献

1
Difficult life events affect lower extremity illness.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022 Apr;142(4):599-605. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03686-y. Epub 2020 Nov 20.
2
Editorial: The Sacredness of Surgery.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Jun;477(6):1257-1261. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000783.

本文引用的文献

1
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Utility for Predicting Spinal Surgery in an Integrated Spine Practice.
PM R. 2018 Jul;10(7):724-729. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.12.004. Epub 2017 Dec 26.
2
Shared Decision Making and Autonomy Among US Participants with Multiple Sclerosis in the NARCOMS Registry.
Int J MS Care. 2017 Nov-Dec;19(6):303-312. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2016-091.
3
Whose Preferences Matter? A Patient-Centered Approach for Eliciting Treatment Goals.
Med Decis Making. 2018 Jan;38(1):44-55. doi: 10.1177/0272989X17724434. Epub 2017 Aug 14.
5
Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review.
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Mar 1;18(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8.
7
9
Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for black and white patients.
J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Sep;22(9):1231-8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0258-5. Epub 2007 Jun 27.
10
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005 Feb;31(2):166-80. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271418.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验