Workplace support for physicians during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Did it affect burnout?

BACKGROUND: A concern before 2020, physician burnout worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little empirical data are available on pandemic workplace support interventions or their influence on burnout. We surveyed a national sample of frontline physicians on burnout and workplace support during the pandemic. METHODS: We surveyed a stratified random sample of 12,833 US physicians most likely to care for adult COVID-19 patients from the comprehensive AMA Physician Professional Data ™ file. The sample included 6722 primary care physicians (3331 family physicians, 3391 internists), 880 hospitalists, 1783 critical care physicians (894 critical care physicians, 889 pulmonary intensivists), 2548 emergency medicine physicians, and 900 infectious disease physicians. The emailed survey elicited physicians' perceptions of organizational interventions to provide workplace support and/or to address burnout. Burnout was assessed with the Professional Fulfillment Index Burnout Composite scale (PFI-BC). Proportional specialty representation and response bias were addressed by survey weighting. Logistic regression assessed the association of physician characteristics and workplace interventions with burnout. RESULTS: After weighting, respondents were representative of the total sample. Overall physician burnout was 45.4%, significantly higher than in our previous survey. Open-ended responses mentioned that staffing shortages (physician, nursing, and other staff) combined with the increased volume, complexity, and acuity of patients during the pandemic increased job demands. The most frequent workplace support interventions were direct pandemic control measures (increased access to personal protective equipment, 70.0%); improved telehealth functionality (43.4%); and individual resiliency tools (yoga, meditation, 30.7%). Respondents placed highest priority on workplace interventions to increase financial support and increase nursing and clinician staffing. Factors significantly associated with lower odds of burnout were practicing critical care (compared with emergency medicine) OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 - 0.93), improved telehealth functionality OR 0.47 (95% CI 0.23 - 0.97) and being in practice for 11 years or longer OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.19-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Burnout across frontline specialties increased during the pandemic. Physician respondents focused on inadequate staffing in the context of caring for more and sicker patients, combined with the lack of administrative efforts to mitigate problems. Burnout mitigation requires system-level interventions beyond individual-focused stress reduction programs to improve staffing, increase compensation, and build effective teams.

Characterizing the Adoption and Experiences of Users of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Health Information in the United States: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: OpenAI's ChatGPT is a source of advanced online health information (OHI) that may be integrated into individuals' health information-seeking routines. However, concerns have been raised about its factual accuracy and impact on health outcomes. To forecast implications for medical practice and public health, more information is needed on who uses the tool, how often, and for what. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterize the reasons for and types of ChatGPT OHI use and describe the users most likely to engage with the platform. METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey, patients received invitations to participate via the ResearchMatch platform, a nonprofit affiliate of the National Institutes of Health. A web-based survey measured demographic characteristics, use of ChatGPT and other sources of OHI, experience characterization, and resultant health behaviors. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Both 2-tailed t tests and Pearson chi-square tests were used to compare users of ChatGPT OHI to nonusers. RESULTS: Of 2406 respondents, 21.5% (n=517) respondents reported using ChatGPT for OHI. ChatGPT users were younger than nonusers (32.8 vs 39.1 years, P<.001) with lower advanced degree attainment (BA or higher; 49.9% vs 67%, P<.001) and greater use of transient health care (ED and urgent care; P<.001). ChatGPT users were more avid consumers of general non-ChatGPT OHI (percentage of weekly or greater OHI seeking frequency in past 6 months, 28.2% vs 22.8%, P<.001). Around 39.3% (n=206) respondents endorsed using the platform for OHI 2-3 times weekly or more, and most sought the tool to determine if a consultation was required (47.4%, n=245) or to explore alternative treatment (46.2%, n=239). Use characterization was favorable as many believed ChatGPT to be just as or more useful than other OHIs (87.7%, n=429) and their doctor (81%, n=407). About one-third of respondents requested a referral (35.6%, n=184) or changed medications (31%, n=160) based on the information received from ChatGPT. As many users reported skepticism regarding the ChatGPT output (67.9%, n=336), most turned to their physicians (67.5%, n=349). CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the significant role of AI-generated OHI in shaping health-seeking behaviors and the potential evolution of patient-provider interactions. Given the proclivity of these users to enact health behavior changes based on AI-generated content, there is an opportunity for physicians to guide ChatGPT OHI users on an informed and examined use of the technology.

Visit Linearity in Primary Care Visits for Patients with Chronic Pain on Long-term Opioid Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Physicians and patients report frustration after primary care visits for chronic pain. The need to shift between multiple clinical topics to address competing demands during visits may contribute to this frustration. OBJECTIVE: This study creates a novel measure, "visit linearity," to assess visit organization and examines whether visits that require less shifting back and forth between topics are associated with better patient and physician visit experiences. It also explores whether visit linearity differs depending on the following: (1) whether or not pain is a major topic of the visit and (2) whether or not pain is the first topic raised. DESIGN: This study analyzed 41 video-recorded visits using inductive, qualitative analysis informed by conversation analysis. We used linear regression to evaluate associations between visit organization and post-visit measures of participant experience. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were established adult patients planning to discuss pain management during routine primary care. Physicians were internal or family medicine residents. MAIN MEASURES: Visit linearity, total topics, return topics, topic shifts, time per topic, visit duration, pain main topic, pain first topic, patient experience, and physician difficulty. KEY RESULTS: Visits had a mean of 8.1 total topics (standard deviation (SD)=3.46), 14.5 topic shifts (SD=6.28), and 1.9 topic shifts per topic (SD=0.62). Less linear visits (higher topic shifts to topic ratio) were associated with greater physician visit difficulty (ß=7.28, p<0.001) and worse patient experience (ß= -0.62, p=0.03). Visit linearity was not significantly impacted by pain as a major or first topic raised. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care visits for patients with chronic pain taking opioids, more linear visits were associated with better physician and patient experience. Frequent topic shifts may be disruptive. If confirmed in future research, this finding implies that reducing shifts between topics could help decrease mutual frustration related to discussions about pain.

Patient, caregiver, and oncologist predictions of quality of life in advanced cancer: Accuracy and associations with end-of-life care and caregiver bereavement.

BACKGROUND: Informed treatment decision-making necessitates accurate prognostication, including predictions about quality of life. AIMS: We examined whether oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and caregivers accurately predict patients' future quality of life and whether these predictions are prospectively associated with end-of-life care and bereavement. MATERIALS & METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of clinical trial data. Patients with advanced cancer (n = 156), caregivers (n = 156), and oncologists (n = 38) predicted patient quality of life 3 months into the future. Patients subsequently rated their quality of life 3 months later. Medical record data documented chemotherapy and emergency department (ED)/inpatient visits in the 30 days before death (n = 79 decedents). Caregivers self-reported on depression, anxiety, grief, purpose, and regret 7-months post-mortem. In mixed-effects models, patient, caregiver, and oncologist quality-of-life predictions at study entry were used to predict end-of-life care and caregiver outcomes, controlling for patients' quality of life at 3-month follow-up, demographic and clinical characteristics, and nesting within oncologists. RESULTS: Caregivers (P < 0.0001) and oncologists (P = 0.001) predicted lower quality of life than what patients actually experienced. Among decedents, 24.0% received chemotherapy and 54.5% had an ED/inpatient visit. When caregivers' predictions were more negative, patients were less likely to receive chemotherapy (P = 0.028) or have an ED/inpatient visit (P = 0.033), and caregivers reported worse depression (P = 0.002), anxiety (P = 0.019), and grief (P = 0.028) and less purpose in life (P < 0.001) 7-months post-mortem. CONCLUSION: When caregivers have more negative expectations about patients' quality of life, patients receive less intensive end-of-life care, and caregivers report worse bereavement outcomes.

Health Information Seeking From an Intelligent Web-Based Symptom Checker: Cross-sectional Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: The ever-growing amount of health information available on the web is increasing the demand for tools providing personalized and actionable health information. Such tools include symptom checkers that provide users with a potential diagnosis after responding to a set of probes about their symptoms. Although the potential for their utility is great, little is known about such tools' actual use and effects. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand who uses a web-based artificial intelligence-powered symptom checker and its purposes, how they evaluate the experience of the web-based interview and quality of the information, what they intend to do with the recommendation, and predictors of future use. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of web-based health information seekers following the completion of a symptom checker visit (N=2437). Measures of comprehensibility, confidence, usefulness, health-related anxiety, empowerment, and intention to use in the future were assessed. ANOVAs and the Wilcoxon rank sum test examined mean outcome differences in racial, ethnic, and sex groups. The relationship between perceptions of the symptom checker and intention to follow recommended actions was assessed using multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: Buoy users were well-educated (1384/1704, 81.22% college or higher), primarily White (1227/1693, 72.47%), and female (2069/2437, 84.89%). Most had insurance (1449/1630, 88.89%), a regular health care provider (1307/1709, 76.48%), and reported good health (1000/1703, 58.72%). Three types of symptoms-pain (855/2437, 35.08%), gynecological issues (293/2437, 12.02%), and masses or lumps (204/2437, 8.37%)-accounted for almost half (1352/2437, 55.48%) of site visits. Buoy's top three primary recommendations split across less-serious triage categories: primary care physician in 2 weeks (754/2141, 35.22%), self-treatment (452/2141, 21.11%), and primary care in 1 to 2 days (373/2141, 17.42%). Common diagnoses were musculoskeletal (303/2437, 12.43%), gynecological (304/2437, 12.47%) and skin conditions (297/2437, 12.19%), and infectious diseases (300/2437, 12.31%). Users generally reported high confidence in Buoy, found it useful and easy to understand, and said that Buoy made them feel less anxious and more empowered to seek medical help. Users for whom Buoy recommended "Waiting/Watching" or "Self-Treatment" had strongest intentions to comply, whereas those advised to seek primary care had weaker intentions. Compared with White users, Latino and Black users had significantly more confidence in Buoy (P<.05), and the former also found it significantly more useful (P<.05). Latino (odds ratio 1.96, 95% CI 1.22-3.25) and Black (odds ratio 2.37, 95% CI 1.57-3.66) users also had stronger intentions to discuss recommendations with a provider than White users. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate the potential utility of a web-based health information tool to empower people to seek care and reduce health-related anxiety. However, despite encouraging results suggesting the tool may fulfill unmet health information needs among women and Black and Latino adults, analyses of the user base illustrate persistent second-level digital divide effects.

The story vs the storyteller: Factors associated with the effectiveness of brief video-recorded patient stories for promoting opioid tapering.

BACKGROUND: Narrative communication is often more persuasive for promoting health behaviour change than communication using facts and figures; the extent to which narrative persuasiveness is due to patients' identification with the storyteller vs engagement with the story is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relative impacts of patient engagement, age concordance and gender concordance on perceived persuasiveness of video-recorded narrative clips about opioid tapering. METHODS: Patient raters watched and rated 48 brief video-recorded clips featuring 1 of 7 different storytellers describing their experiences with opioid tapering. The dependent variable was clips' perceived persuasiveness for encouraging patients to consider opioid tapering. Independent variables were rater engagement with the clip, rater-storyteller gender concordance and rater-storyteller age concordance (<60 vs ≥60). Covariates were rater beliefs about opioids and opioid tapering, clip duration and clip theme. Mixed-effects models accounted for raters viewing multiple clips and clips nested within storytellers. RESULTS: In multivariable models, higher rater engagement with the clip was associated with higher perceived persuasiveness (coefficient = 0.46, 95% CI 0.39-0.53, P < .001). Neither age concordance nor gender concordance significantly predicted perceived persuasiveness. The theme Problems with opioids also predicted perceived persuasiveness. CONCLUSION: Highly engaging, clinically relevant stories are likely persuasive to patients regardless of the match between patient and storyteller age and gender. When using patient stories in tools to promote health behaviour change, stories that are clinically relevant and engaging are likely to be persuasive regardless of storytellers' demographics. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved as storytellers (in each clip) and assessed the key study variables.

Agenda setting and visit openings in primary care visits involving patients taking opioids for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Agenda setting is associated with more efficient care and better patient experience. This study develops a taxonomy of visit opening styles to assess use of agenda and non-agenda setting visit openings and their effects on participant experience. METHODS: This observational study analyzed 83 video recorded US primary care visits at a single academic medical center in California involving family medicine and internal medicine resident physicians (n = 49) and patients (n = 83) with chronic pain on opioids. Using conversation analysis, we developed a coding scheme that assessed the presence of agenda setting, distinct visit opening styles, and the number of total topics, major topics, surprise patient topics, and returns to prior topics discussed. Exploratory quantitative analyses were conducted to assess the relationship of agenda setting and visit opening styles with post-visit measures of both patient experience and physician perception of visit difficulty. RESULTS: We identified 2 visit opening styles representing agenda setting (agenda eliciting, agenda reframing) and 3 non-agenda setting opening styles (open-ended question, patient launch, physician launch). Agenda setting was only performed in 11% of visits and was associated with fewer surprise patient topics than visits without agenda setting (mean (SD) 2.67 (1.66) versus 4.28 (3.23), p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with chronic pain, resident physicians rarely performed agenda setting, whether defined in terms of "agenda eliciting" or "agenda re-framing." Agenda setting was associated with fewer surprise topics. Understanding the communication context and outcomes of agenda setting may inform better use of this communication tool in primary care  practice.

Tailored Activation of Middle-Aged Men to Promote Discussion of Recent Active Suicide Thoughts: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Middle-aged men are at high risk of suicide. While about half of those who kill themselves visit a primary care clinician (PCC) shortly before death, in current practice, few spontaneously disclose their thoughts of suicide during the visits, and PCCs seldom inquire about such thoughts. In a randomized controlled trial, we examined the effect of a tailored interactive computer program designed to encourage middle-aged men's discussion of suicide with PCCs. METHODS: We recruited men 35-74 years old reporting recent (within 4 weeks) active suicide thoughts from the panels of 42 PCCs (the unit of randomization) in eight offices within a single California health system. In the office before a visit, men viewed the intervention corresponding to their PCC's random group assignment: Men and Providers Preventing Suicide (MAPS) (20 PCCs), providing tailored multimedia promoting discussion of suicide thoughts, or control (22 PCCs), composed of a sleep hygiene video plus brief non-tailored text encouraging discussion of suicide thoughts. Logistic regressions, adjusting for patient nesting within physicians, examined MAPS' effect on patient-reported suicide discussion in the subsequent office visit. RESULTS: Sixteen of the randomized PCCs had no patients enroll in the trial. From the panels of the remaining 26 PCCs (12 MAPS, 14 control), 48 men (MAPS 21, control 27) were enrolled (a mean of 1.8 (range 1-5) per PCC), with a mean age of 55.9 years (SD 11.4). Suicide discussion was more likely among MAPS patients (15/21 [65%]) than controls (8/27 [35%]). Logistic regression showed men viewing MAPS were more likely than controls to discuss suicide with their PCC (OR 5.91, 95% CI 1.59-21.94; P = 0.008; nesting-adjusted predicted effect 71% vs. 30%). CONCLUSIONS: In addressing barriers to discussing suicide, the tailored MAPS program activated middle-aged men with active suicide thoughts to engage with PCCs around this customarily taboo topic.

"It Sometimes Doesn't Even Work": Patient Opioid Assessments as Clues to Therapeutic Flexibility in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Physicians' fear of difficult patient interactions is an important barrier to discontinuing long-term opioid therapy. OBJECTIVE: To identify patient statements about opioids that indicate potential openness to tapering opioids or trying non-opioid pain treatments DESIGN: This is an observational study of regularly scheduled primary care visits involving discussion of chronic pain management. A coding system to characterize patient assessments about opioids, physician responses to assessments, and patient-endorsed opioid side effects was developed and applied to transcripts of video-recorded visits. All visits were independently coded by 2 authors. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-six established adult patients taking opioids for chronic pain; 49 physicians in 2 academic primary care clinics MAIN MEASURES: Frequency and topic of patients' opioid assessments; proportion of opioid assessments classified as clues (assessments indicating potential willingness to consider non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses); physician responses to patient clues; frequency and type of patient-endorsed side effects KEY RESULTS: Patients made a mean of 3.2 opioid assessments (median 2) per visit. The most common assessment topics were pain relief (51%), effect on function (21%), and opioid safety (14%). Forty-seven percent of opioid assessments (mean 1.5 per visit) were classified as clues. Fifty-three percent of visits included ≥ 1 clue; 21% of visits contained ≥ 3 clues. Physicians responded to patient clues with no/minimal response 43% of the time, sympathetic/empathetic statements 14% of the time, and further explored clues 43% of the time. Fifty-eight percent of patients endorsed ≥ 1 opioid-related side effect; 10% endorsed ≥ 3 side effects. The most commonly endorsed side effects were constipation (15% of patients), sedation (15%), withdrawal symptoms (13%), and nausea (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Patient statements suggesting openness to non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses are common during routine primary care visits. Listening for and exploring these clues may be a patient-centered strategy for broaching difficult topics with patients on long-term opioid therapy.

Effect of Mobile Device-Assisted N-of-1 Trial Participation on Analgesic Prescribing for Chronic Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently prescribed for chronic musculoskeletal pain, despite limited evidence of effectiveness and well-documented adverse effects. We assessed the effects of participating in a structured, personalized self-experiment ("N-of-1 trial") on analgesic prescribing in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: We randomized 215 patients with chronic pain to participate in an N-of-1 trial facilitated by a mobile health app or to receive usual care. Medical records of participating patients were reviewed at enrollment and 6 months later to assess analgesic prescribing. We established thresholds of ≥ 50, ≥ 20, and > 0 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per day to capture patients taking relatively high doses only, patients taking low-moderate as well as relatively high doses, and patients taking any dose of opioids, respectively. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the N-of-1 and control groups in the percentage of patients prescribed any opioids (relative odds ratio (ROR) = 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61 to 1.80, p = 0.87). There was a clinically substantial but statistically not significant reduction of the percentage of patients receiving ≥ 20 MME (ROR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.04, p = 0.07) and also in the percentage receiving ≥ 50 MME (ROR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.19 to 1.34, p = 0.17). There was a significant reduction in the proportion of patients in the N-of-1 group prescribed NSAIDs compared with control (relative odds ratio = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.96, p = 0.04), with no concomitant increase in average pain intensity. There was no significant change in use of adjunctive medications (acetaminophen, gabapentenoids, or topicals). DISCUSSION: These exploratory results suggest that participation in N-of-1 trials may reduce long-term use of NSAIDs; there is also a weak signal for an effect on use of opioids. Additional research is needed to confirm these results and elucidate possible mechanisms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02116621.

Prognostic accuracy of patients, caregivers, and oncologists in advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: In caring for patients with advanced cancer, accurate estimation of survival is important for clinical decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of 2-year survival probabilities estimated by oncologists, patients, and caregivers and to identify demographic and clinical factors associated with prognostic accuracy. METHODS: This was a secondary observational analysis of data obtained from a cluster randomized controlled trial. Participants included 38 oncologists, 263 patients with advanced nonhematologic cancer, and 193 of their caregivers from clinics in Sacramento and Western New York. Discrimination within each group (oncologists, patients, caregivers) was evaluated using the C statistic, whereas calibration was assessed by comparing observed to predicted 2-year mortality using the chi-square statistic. RESULTS: The median survival from study entry was 18 months, and 41.8% of patients survived for 2 years. C statistics for oncologists, patients, and caregivers were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.86), 0.62 (95% CI, 0.55-0.68), and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78), respectively; oncologists' predictions were better than the predictions of both patients (P = .001) and caregivers (P = .03). Oncologists also had superior calibration: their predictions of 2-year survival were similar to actual survival (P = .17), whereas patients' (P = .0001) and caregivers' (P = .003) predictions diverged significantly from actual survival. Although most oncologists' predictions were classified as realistic (62.0%), approximately one-half of patients' and caregivers' predictions (50.0% and 46.0%, respectively) were unduly optimistic. Among patients, nonwhite race and higher levels of social well-being predicted undue optimism (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with oncologists, patients and caregivers displayed inferior prognostic discrimination, and their predictions were poorly calibrated, primarily because of overoptimism.

Challenges with Implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Opioid Guideline: A Consensus Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: A national crisis of opioid-related morbidity, mortality, and misuse has led to initiatives to address the appropriate role of opioids to treat pain. Deployment of a guideline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reduce the risks of opioid therapy has raised substantial clinical and public policy challenges. The agency anticipated implementation challenges and committed to reevaluating the guideline for intended and unintended effects on clinician and patient outcomes. OBSERVATIONS: A multidisciplinary expert panel met to review the influence of the core recommendations of the guideline on pain management practices, principally regarding the estimated 5 to 8 million Americans with chronic pain currently on opioids. The panel identified implementation challenges, including application of dosage ceilings and prescription duration guidance, failure to appreciate the importance of patient involvement in decisions to taper or discontinue opioids, barriers to diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder, and impeded access to recommended comprehensive, multimodal pain care. Furthermore, policy-making and regulatory bodies may misapply guideline recommendations without flexibility and, sometimes, without full awareness of what the guideline contains. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The panel largely supported the guideline, endorsing its focal points of safety and comprehensive assessment and monitoring. To mitigate clinical and policy challenges identified with implementing the guideline, the panel discussed areas where viewpoints diverged and arrived at consensus proposals. The target audience includes the leaders and institutions that create policy and influence guideline implementation to include regulatory agencies, legislators, public and private payers, and health care systems.

Communication interventions to promote the public's awareness of antibiotics: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate antibiotic use is implicated in antibiotic resistance and resultant morbidity and mortality. Overuse is particularly prevalent for outpatient respiratory infections, and perceived patient expectations likely contribute. Thus, various educational programs have been implemented to educate the public. METHODS: We systematically identified public-directed interventions to promote antibiotic awareness in the United States. PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus were queried for articles published from January 1996 through January 2016. Two investigators independently assessed titles and abstracts of retrieved articles for subsequent full-text review. References of selected articles and three review articles were likewise screened for inclusion. Identified educational interventions were coded for target audience, content, distribution site, communication method, and major outcomes. RESULTS: Our search yielded 1,106 articles; 34 met inclusion criteria. Due to overlap in interventions studied, 29 distinct educational interventions were identified. Messages were primarily delivered in outpatient clinics (N = 24, 83%) and community sites (N = 12, 41%). The majority included clinician education. Antibiotic prescription rates were assessed for 22 interventions (76%). Patient knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs (KAB) were assessed for 10 interventions (34%). Similar rates of success between antibiotic prescription rates and patient KAB were reported (73 and 70%, respectively). Patient interventions that did not include clinician education were successful to increase KAB but were not shown to decrease antibiotic prescribing. Three interventions targeted reductions in Streptococcus pneumoniae resistance; none were successful. CONCLUSIONS: Messaging programs varied in their designs, and many were multifaceted in their approach. These interventions can change patient perspectives regarding antibiotic use, though it is unclear if clinician education is also necessary to reduce antibiotic prescribing. Further investigations are needed to determine the relative influence of interventions focusing on patients and physicians and to determine whether these changes can influence rates of antibiotic resistance long-term.

The ecology of patient and caregiver participation in consultations involving advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of participation of patients with advanced cancer in clinical encounters with oncologists and to assess the impact of patient and caregiver participation on perceptions of physician support. METHODS: This is a secondary data analysis from the Values and Options in Cancer Care study, a cluster randomized clinical trial of a patient-centered communication intervention. Patients and caregivers completed pre-visit and post-visit health and communication measures. Audio recorded patient-caregiver (when present)-physician encounters were coded for active patient/caregiver participation behaviors (eg, question asking, expressing concern) and for physicians' facilitative communication (eg, partnership-building, support). Mixed linear regression models were used to identify patient, physician, and situational factors predicting patient and patient plus caregiver communication behaviors and post-visit outcomes. RESULTS: Physician partnership building predicted greater expressions of concern and more assertive responses from patients and patient-caregiver pairs. Patients' perceptions of greater connectedness with their physician predicted fewer patient expressions of concern. Patient perceptions of physician respect for their autonomy were lower among patients accompanied by caregivers. Caregiver perceptions of physician respect for patient autonomy decreased with increasing patient age and varied by site. CONCLUSIONS: In advanced cancer care, patient and caregiver communication is affected by ecological factors within their consultations. Physicians can support greater patient participation in clinical encounters through facilitative communication such as partnership-building and supportive talk. The presence of a caregiver complicates this environment, but partnership building techniques may help promote patient and caregiver participation during these visits.

Reliability of Physician-Level Measures of Patient Experience in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience measures are widely used to compare performance at the individual physician level. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of unmeasured patient characteristics on visit-level patient experience measures and the sample sizes required to reliably measure patient experience at the primary care physician (PCP) level. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional design. SETTING: Academic family medicine practice in California. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand one hundred forty-one adult patients attending 1319 visits with 56 PCPs (including 45 resident and 11 faculty physicians). MEASUREMENTS: Post-visit patient experience surveys including patient measures used for standard adjustment as recommend by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Consortium and additional patient characteristics used for expanded adjustment (including attitudes toward healthcare, global life satisfaction, patient personality, current symptom bother, and marital status). RESULTS: The amount of variance in patient experience explained doubled with expanded adjustment for patient characteristics compared with standard adjustment (R2 = 20.0% vs. 9.6%, respectively). With expanded adjustment, the amount of variance attributable to the PCP dropped from 6.1% to 3.4% and the required sample size to achieve a reliability of 0.90 in the physician-level patient experience measure increased from 138 to 255 patients per physician. After ranking of the 56 PCPs by average patient experience, 8 were reclassified into or out of the top or bottom quartiles of average experience with expanded as compared to standard adjustment [14.3% (95% CI: 7.0-25.2%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Widely used methods for measuring PCP-level patient experience may not account sufficiently for influential patient characteristics. If methods were adapted to account for these characteristics, patient sample sizes for reliable between-physician comparisons may be too large for most practices to obtain.

Family-centered depression treatment for older men in primary care: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Family members often play important roles in the lives of depressed older men and frequently attend primary care visits with their loved ones, yet surprisingly little is known about how to most effectively engage and include family members in depression treatment. However, including family in depression treatment may be difficult due to several factors, such as depression stigma and family conflicts. The objective of this study was to describe challenges in engaging family members in older men's depression treatment and potential strategies to overcome those challenges. METHODS: A cross-sectional, qualitative descriptive interview study was conducted in a safety-net, Federally Qualified Health Center in California's Central Valley. A total of 37 stakeholders were recruited, including 15 depressed older (i.e. age ≥ 60) men, 12 family members, and 10 clinic staff. Depressed men were identified through mail outreach, waiting room screening, and referral. Depressed men identified family members who were later approached to participate. We also recruited a purposeful sample of clinic staff. Interviews explored stakeholder perspectives on family involvement in men's depression treatment as part of a primary care intervention. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide, tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated if the interview was conducted in Spanish. RESULTS: Four themes were identified representing core challenges: engaging men at the right time; preserving men's sense of autonomy; managing privacy concerns; and navigating family tensions. Stakeholders also provided practical suggestions and advice about how each of these challenges might be addressed. CONCLUSIONS: While engaging family is a promising approach to strengthen depression care for older men in primary care settings, several potential challenges exist. Family- centered depression intervention development and clinical practice need to anticipate these challenges and to develop approaches and guidelines to address them.

Training Primary Care Physicians to Employ Self-Efficacy-Enhancing Interviewing Techniques: Randomized Controlled Trial of a Standardized Patient Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) have few tools for enhancing patient self-efficacy, a key mediator of myriad health-influencing behaviors. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether brief standardized patient instructor (SPI)-delivered training increases PCPs' use of self-efficacy-enhancing interviewing techniques (SEE IT). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two family physicians and general internists from 12 primary care offices drawn from two health systems in Northern California. INTERVENTIONS: Experimental arm PCPs received training in the use of SEE IT training during three outpatient SPI visits scheduled over a 1-month period. Control arm PCPs received a single SPI visit, during which they viewed a diabetes treatment video. All intervention visits (experimental and control) were timed to last 20 min. SPIs portrayed patients struggling with self-care of depression and diabetes in the first 7 min, then delivered the appropriate intervention content during the remaining 13 min. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was provider use of SEE IT (a count of ten behaviors), coded from three audio-recorded standardized patient visits at 1-3 months, again involving depression and diabetes self-care. Two five-point scales measured physician responses to training: Value (7 items: quality, helpfulness, understandability, relevance, feasibility, planned use, care impact), and Hassle (2 items: personal hassle, flow disruption). KEY RESULTS: Pre-intervention, study PCPs used a mean of 0.7 behaviors/visit, with no significant between-arm difference (P = 0.23). Post-intervention, experimental arm PCPs used more of the behaviors than controls (mean 2.7 vs. 1.0 per visit; adjusted difference 1.7, 95 % CI 1.1-2.2; P < 0.001). Experimental arm PCPs had higher training Value scores than controls (mean difference 1.05, 95 % CI 0.68-1.42; P < 0.001), and similarly low Hassle scores. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians receiving brief SPI-delivered training increased their use of SEE IT and found the training to be of value. Whether patients visiting SEE IT-trained physicians experience improved health behaviors and outcomes warrants study. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01618552.

Development of the Chronic Pain Coding System (CPCS) for Characterizing Patient-Clinician Discussions About Chronic Pain and Opioids.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and initial application of the Chronic Pain Coding System. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Six primary care clinics in northern California. SUBJECTS: Forty-five primary care visits involving 33 clinicians and 45 patients on opioids for chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: The authors developed a structured coding system to accurately and objectively characterize discussions about pain and opioids. Two coders applied the final system to visit transcripts. Intercoder agreement for major coding categories was moderate to substantial (kappa = 0.5-0.7). Mixed effects regression was used to test six hypotheses to assess preliminary construct validity. RESULTS: Greater baseline pain interference was associated with longer pain discussions (P = 0.007) and more patient requests for clinician action (P = 0.02) but not more frequent negative patient evaluations of pain (P = 0.15). Greater clinician-reported visit difficulty was associated with more frequent disagreements with clinician recommendations (P = 0.003) and longer discussions of opioid risks (P = 0.049) but not more frequent requests for clinician action (P = 0.11). Rates of agreement versus disagreement with patient requests and clinician recommendations were similar for opioid-related and non-opioid-related utterances. CONCLUSIONS: This coding system appears to be a reliable and valid tool for characterizing patient-clinician communication about opioids and chronic pain during clinic visits. Objective data on how patients and clinicians discuss chronic pain and opioids are necessary to identify communication patterns and strategies for improving the quality and productivity of discussions about chronic pain that may lead to more effective pain management and reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing.

Characterizing internet health information seeking strategies by socioeconomic status: a mixed methods approach.

BACKGROUND: The Internet is valuable for those with limited access to health care services because of its low cost and wealth of information. Our objectives were to investigate how the Internet is used to obtain health-related information and how individuals with differing socioeconomic resources navigate it when presented with a health decision. METHODS: Study participants were recruited from public settings and social service agencies. Participants listened to one of two clinical scenarios - consistent with influenza or bacterial meningitis - and then conducted an Internet search. Screen-capture video software captured the Internet search. Participant Internet search strategies were analyzed and coded for pre- and post-Internet search guess at diagnosis and information seeking patterns. Individuals who did not have a college degree and were recruited from locations offering social services were categorized as "lower socioeconomic status" (SES); the remainder was categorized as "higher SES." Participants were 78 Internet health information seekers, ranging from 21-35 years of age, who experienced barriers to accessing health care services. RESULTS: Lower-SES individuals were more likely to use an intuitive, rather than deliberative, approach to Internet health information seeking. Lower- and higher-SES participants did not differ in the tendency to make diagnostic guesses based on Internet searches. Lower-SES participants were more likely than their higher-SES counterparts to narrow the scope of their search. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that individuals with different levels of socioeconomic status vary in the heuristics and search patterns they rely upon to direct their searches. The influence and use of credible information in the process of making a decision is associated with education and prior experiences with healthcare services. Those with limited resources may be disadvantaged when turning to the Internet to make a health decision.