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

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.009
Nina L Loos, Ruud W Selles, Marloes H P Ter Stege, Grada R Danée Arends, Lisa Hoogendam, Yara E van Kooij, Joris Veltkamp, Robbert M Wouters
{"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, Ruud W Selles, Marloes H P Ter Stege, Grada R Danée Arends, Lisa Hoogendam, Yara E van Kooij, Joris Veltkamp, Robbert M Wouters","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.009","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","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
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
Performance of the EQ-5D-5L with skin irritation and self-confidence bolt-on items in patients with urticaria. The Value of Positron Emission Tomography for Confirmation of Alzheimer's Disease in the Era of Amyloid-Targeting Therapies. Use of Real-World Evidence in Health Technology Reassessments Across Six Health Technology Assessment Agencies. A Comprehensive View of the Methods Used to Measure the Societal Impact of Healthcare Interventions: A Systematic Review. A systematic review and meta-analysis of health state utility values for infectious diseases with pandemic potential and associated vaccine adverse reactions.
×
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:481959085
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