RESUMO
In Shared Medical Appointments (SMAs), patients with similar conditions meet the physician together and each receives one-on-one attention. SMAs can improve outcomes and physician productivity. Yet privacy concerns have stymied adoption. In physician-deprived nations, patients' utility from improved access may outweigh their disutility from loss of privacy. Ours is to our knowledge the first SMA trial for any disease, in India, where doctors are scarce. In a 1,000-patient, single-site, randomized controlled trial at Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, we compared SMAs and one-on-one appointments, over four successive visits, for patients with glaucoma. We examined patients' satisfaction, knowledge, intention-to-follow-up, follow-up rates, and medication compliance rates (primary outcomes) using intention-to-treat analysis. Of 1,034 patients invited between July 12, 2016 -July 19, 2018, 1,000 (96.7%) consented to participate, and were randomly assigned to either SMAs (NSMA = 500) or one-on-one appointments (N1-1 = 500). Patients who received SMAs showed higher satisfaction (MeanSMA = 4.955 (SD 0.241), Mean1-1 = 4.920 (SD 0.326); difference in means 0.035; 95% CI, 0.017-0.054, p = 0.0002) and knowledge (MeanSMA = 3.416 (SD 1.340), Mean1-1 = 3.267 (SD 1.492); difference in means 0.149; 95% CI, 0.057-0.241, p = 0.002) than patients who received one-on-one appointments. Across conditions, there was no difference in patients' intention-to-follow-up (MeanSMA = 4.989 (SD 0.118), Mean1-1 = 4.986 (SD 0.149); difference in means 0.003; 95% CI, -0.006-0.012, p = 0.481) and actual follow-up rates (MeanSMA = 87.5% (SD 0.372), Mean1-1 = 88.7% (SD 0.338); difference in means -0.012; 95% CI, -0.039-0.015, p = 0.377). Patients who received SMAs exhibited higher medication compliance rates (MeanSMA = 97.0% (SD 0.180), Mean1-1 = 94.9% (SD 0.238); difference in means 0.020; 95% CI, 0.004-0.036, p = 0.013). SMAs improved satisfaction, learning, and medication compliance, without compromising follow-up rates or measured clinical outcomes. Peer interruptions were negatively correlated with patient satisfaction in early-trial SMAs and positively correlated with patient satisfaction in later-trial SMAs. Trial registration: The trial was registered with Clinical Trials Registry of India (https://ctri.nic.in/) with reference no. REF/2016/11/012659 and registration no. CTRI/2018/02/011998.
RESUMO
People often feel malicious envy, a destructive interpersonal emotion, when they compare themselves to successful peers. Across 3 online experiments and a field experiment of entrepreneurs, we identify an interpersonal strategy that can mitigate feelings of malicious envy in observers: revealing one's failures. Despite a general reluctance to reveal one's failures-as they are happening and after they have occurred-across four experiments, we find that revealing both successes and failures encountered on the path to success (compared to revealing only successes) decreases observers' malicious envy. This effect holds regardless of the discloser's status and cannot be explained by a decrease in perceived status of the individual. Then, in a field experiment at an entrepreneurial pitch competition, where pride displays are common and stakes are high, we find suggestive evidence that learning about the failures of a successful entrepreneur decreases observers' malicious envy while increasing their benign envy and decreasing their perceptions of the entrepreneur's hubristic pride (i.e., arrogance) while increasing their perceptions of the entrepreneur's authentic pride (i.e., confidence). These findings align with previous work on the social-functional relation of envy and pride. Taken together, our results highlight how revealing failures encountered on the way to success can be a counterintuitive yet effective interpersonal emotion regulation strategy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).