Using Outcome Information During Consultation Yields Better Shared Decision Making, Better Patient Experiences, and More Positive Expectations: A Comparative Effectiveness Study

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.009
Nina L. Loos MSc , Ruud W. Selles PhD , Marloes H.P. ter Stege MSc , Grada R. (Danée) Arends MSc , Lisa Hoogendam MSc , Yara E. van Kooij MSc , Joris Veltkamp BSc , Outcome-Based Healthcare Research Group, Robbert M. Wouters PhD, PT
{"title":"Using Outcome Information During Consultation Yields Better Shared Decision Making, Better Patient Experiences, and More Positive Expectations: A Comparative Effectiveness Study","authors":"Nina L. Loos MSc ,&nbsp;Ruud W. Selles PhD ,&nbsp;Marloes H.P. ter Stege MSc ,&nbsp;Grada R. (Danée) Arends MSc ,&nbsp;Lisa Hoogendam MSc ,&nbsp;Yara E. van Kooij MSc ,&nbsp;Joris Veltkamp BSc ,&nbsp;Outcome-Based Healthcare Research Group,&nbsp;Robbert M. Wouters PhD, PT","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Value-based healthcare has recently gained recognition. Part of this framework uses the outcome information from daily care. This study evaluated the effects of patients’ perceived use of outcome information on shared decision making, patient experiences with healthcare, treatment credibility, and outcome expectations.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Data were collected from 25 hand surgery and therapy clinics. We created 2 groups based on whether patients indicated that outcome information was used (Outcome Information group) or not (control group) during the clinician consultation. Patients’ experiences with healthcare were assessed after the first consultation using a digitally distributed patient-reported experience measure and a questionnaire to measure treatment credibility and expectations. Confounders were controlled for using propensity score matching in a 3:1 ratio. We calculated Cliff’s delta as an effect size measure (0.11-0.27 small, 0.28-0.42 medium, and &gt;0.43 large).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>After propensity score matching, we included 636 patients in the Outcome Information group and 212 in the control groups, respectively. The Outcome Information group experienced more shared decision making (Cliff’s delta 0.33 [0.24-0.40], <em>P</em> &lt; .001) and scored better on all patient-reported experience measure items. Patients in the Outcome Information group had more positive expectations of the treatment outcome (Cliff’s delta: 0.21 [0.12-0.29], <em>P</em> &lt; .001) and found their treatment more credible (Cliff’s delta: 0.26 [0.18-0.34], <em>P</em> &lt; .001) than those in the control group.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The perceived use of outcome information by patients leads to more shared decision making, better experiences with healthcare, and more positive outcome expectations and treatment credibility. Therefore, we recommend the use of outcome information in daily care to fulfill the promise of value-based healthcare.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":"28 4","pages":"Pages 571-581"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109830152500035X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Value-based healthcare has recently gained recognition. Part of this framework uses the outcome information from daily care. This study evaluated the effects of patients’ perceived use of outcome information on shared decision making, patient experiences with healthcare, treatment credibility, and outcome expectations.

Methods

Data were collected from 25 hand surgery and therapy clinics. We created 2 groups based on whether patients indicated that outcome information was used (Outcome Information group) or not (control group) during the clinician consultation. Patients’ experiences with healthcare were assessed after the first consultation using a digitally distributed patient-reported experience measure and a questionnaire to measure treatment credibility and expectations. Confounders were controlled for using propensity score matching in a 3:1 ratio. We calculated Cliff’s delta as an effect size measure (0.11-0.27 small, 0.28-0.42 medium, and >0.43 large).

Results

After propensity score matching, we included 636 patients in the Outcome Information group and 212 in the control groups, respectively. The Outcome Information group experienced more shared decision making (Cliff’s delta 0.33 [0.24-0.40], P < .001) and scored better on all patient-reported experience measure items. Patients in the Outcome Information group had more positive expectations of the treatment outcome (Cliff’s delta: 0.21 [0.12-0.29], P < .001) and found their treatment more credible (Cliff’s delta: 0.26 [0.18-0.34], P < .001) than those in the control group.

Conclusions

The perceived use of outcome information by patients leads to more shared decision making, better experiences with healthcare, and more positive outcome expectations and treatment credibility. Therefore, we recommend the use of outcome information in daily care to fulfill the promise of value-based healthcare.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在会诊期间使用结果信息可以产生更好的共同决策、更好的患者体验和更积极的期望:一项比较有效性研究。
目标:以价值为基础的医疗保健已得到认可。该框架的一部分是在日常护理中使用结果信息。本研究评估了患者对结果信息的感知使用对共同决策、患者医疗保健体验、治疗可信度和结果预期的影响。方法:收集25家门诊手部手术治疗资料。我们根据患者是否表示在临床医生咨询期间使用了结果信息(结果信息组)或未使用结果信息(对照组)创建了两组。在第一次咨询后,使用数字分发的患者报告体验测量(PREM)和测量治疗可信度和期望的问卷来评估患者的医疗保健体验。我们在3:1的基础上使用倾向评分匹配来控制混杂因素。我们计算Cliff’s delta作为效应大小测量(0.11-0.27小,0.28-0.42中,>0.43大)。结果:倾向评分匹配后,我们将636例患者纳入结局信息组,212例患者纳入对照组。结果信息组有更多的共同决策(Cliff’s delta 0.33[0.24-0.40])。结论:患者对结果信息的感知使用导致更多的共同决策,更好的医疗保健体验,更积极的结果预期和治疗可信度。因此,我们建议在日常护理中使用结果信息来实现基于价值的医疗保健的承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Literature Review of Elicitation Methods for Distributional Preferences in Healthcare Regarding the Concentration and Dispersion of Health Benefits. Author Reply Author Reply Table of Contents Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1