More effective assessment of adverse effects and comorbidities in epilepsy: results of a Phase II communication study.

Research was conducted to evaluate conversations about epilepsy between community-based neurologists and patients. Adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs and mood/behavioral issues were infrequently discussed, and neurologists and patients disagreed about these issues postvisit. Follow-up research was conducted to assess the impact of a previsit assessment tool on discussions of epilepsy. Twenty neurologists reviewed a tool incorporating questions from validated instruments (Adverse Events Profile [AEP] and Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy [NDDI-E]). Naturally occurring interactions between neurologists and 60 patients were recorded. Neurologists and patients were interviewed separately. All components were transcribed and analyzed using sociolinguistics. Using the previsit assessment tool increased the number of discussions about adverse effects and mood/behavioral issues and increased neurologist-patient agreement about issues postvisit. Visit length did not increase significantly when the tool was used. Ten months after follow-up research, 50% of neurologists reported continuing to use the tool in everyday practice with patients with epilepsy.

Improving Communication in ADHD Care: Results from In-office Linguistic Research.

UNLABELLED: IntroductionAn in-office linguistic study was conducted to help improve understanding of how to better evaluate and treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Naturally occurring interactions were recorded among 7 psychiatrists and 23 patients and 8 pediatricians along with 22 patients and their parents. Participants were interviewed separately post-visit. Transcripts of interactions and interviews were analyzed using sociolinguistic techniques. RESULTS: Visits were variable in length and lacked concrete treatment plans. In the pediatric setting, children were typically excluded from dialogues, accounting for only 8% of words spoken. School was the primary metric used to evaluate symptoms. Pediatricians allayed parents' concerns about stimulant therapy by promising to prescribe the lowest possible dose, rather than discussing titrating to an optimal dose. Adults were evaluated idiosyncratically without the use of scales or tools. Stimulants were positioned as short-term "trials" without strong physician recommendations.DiscussionConversations about stimulant therapy lacked goal- and expectation-setting. Also missing from conversations was a definitive treatment plan based on the core symptoms of ADHD. Incorporating open-ended questions and tools or rating scales may result in a more effective and efficient in-office dialogue. CONCLUSION: Further research is warranted to assess the efficacy of communication strategies to enhance in-office discussions of ADHD and stimulant therapy.

Conversations between community-based neurologists and patients with epilepsy: results of an observational linguistic study.

An in-office linguistic study was conducted to assess neurologist-patient discussions of epilepsy. Naturally occurring interactions among 20 neurologists and 60 of their patients with epilepsy were recorded. Participants were interviewed separately postvisit. Transcripts were analyzed using sociolinguistic techniques. Of 59 patients taking antiepileptic drugs previsit, 44 (75%) discussed side effects with their neurologist. Side effect discussions were most often neurologist initiated. Postvisit, patients and neurologists often disagreed about which side effects were experienced. The presence of a caregiver (e.g., spouse) usually resulted in lengthier, more detailed discussions of side effects, without drastically increasing overall visit length. Discussions of mood- and behavior-related comorbidities occurred infrequently (14 of 60 visits); postvisit, neurologists stated that they felt that management of these conditions was outside their area of expertise. Communication gaps observed in discussions of epilepsy and its treatment warrant further exploration. Additional research is currently underway to assess the efficacy of a previsit assessment tool.

Linguistic analysis of in-office dialogue among cardiologists, primary care physicians, and patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

An in-office linguistic study was conducted to assess physician-patient discussions of mixed dyslipidemia. Naturally occurring interactions among 12 cardiologists, 12 primary care physicians, and 45 of their patients diagnosed with low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and being treated with prescription niacin extended-release were recorded. The participants were interviewed separately after the visit. The transcripts were analyzed using sociolinguistic techniques. Determined from the time at talk and the number of questions asked, the patients were moderately engaged in the visit conversations; however, most communication was physician-driven. Only 6% of the average visit was dedicated to disease education. Conversations about dyslipidemia were characterized by numerous laboratory values but rarely contained clear benchmarking or goal setting. In the postvisit interviews, the patients demonstrated a lack of understanding about their lipid levels and the next steps they should take. Both "HDL" [high-density lipoprotein] and "good cholesterol" were the most frequently mentioned aspects of dyslipidemia in these conversations; however, most physicians did not contextualize these components such that the patients were able to understand and retain the information after the visit. Although the conversations about treatment with niacin extended-release contained detailed information about how to manage the side effect of flushing, they lacked a clear description of this side effect. Also, missing from the dialogue was a balanced discussion of risks and benefits. Communication gaps were observed in the discussions regarding mixed dyslipidemia and its treatment with niacin extended-release. In conclusion, additional research is warranted to assess the efficacy of communication strategies to educate both physicians and patients about this condition and its treatment.

Healthcare provider-patient communication and migraine assessment: results of the American Migraine Communication Study, phase II.

OBJECTIVE: The American Migraine Communication Study I (AMCS I) revealed communication deficits illustrated by differing healthcare professional (HCP) and patient reports about issues such as impairment and frequency. AMCS II was designed to assess an intervention using open-ended questions about impairment and 'ask-tell-ask' sequences to confirm headache frequency in days versus attacks. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: HCPs who participated in AMCS I completed an internet-based intervention. Researchers were sent to HCPs' offices, and patients likely to discuss migraine were recruited immediately prior to normally-scheduled appointments. Post-consent, visits were recorded without a researcher present. Separate post-visit interviews were conducted with all parties. All interactions were transcribed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Transcripts were analyzed using validated sociolinguistic techniques, and study results were compared to AMCS I. RESULTS: HCPs assessed impairment in 90% of interactions compared to 10% in AMCS I (p<0.0001) and used open-ended questions to assess impairment in 55% of visits (95% CI: 0.4261-0.6598). Impairment between attacks was discussed in 37% of visits vs. 0% in AMCS I (p<0.0001). HCPs completed full ask-tell-ask sequences in 29% of visits (95% CI: 0.1921-0.4070). AMCS II contained more discussions of migraine preventive therapy with appropriate candidates compared to AMCS I (74 vs. 50%; p=0.069) without statistically increasing median visit length (9:36 vs. 11:00; p=0.668). Post-visit, HCPs and patients were often aligned about impairment and frequency and reported high levels of satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Although further research with a larger sample is needed, a brief, internet-based intervention appears to promote positive communication changes not associated with increased visit length.