Attitudes on Equal Health Care Access versus Efficient Clinical Decisions across a Not-for-Profit Health Care System.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-24 DOI:10.1177/0272989X231206750
Ganeev Singh, Laura Corlin, Paul R Beninger, Peter J Neumann, Marcia M Boumil, Shreya Mehta, Deeb N Salem
{"title":"Attitudes on Equal Health Care Access versus Efficient Clinical Decisions across a Not-for-Profit Health Care System.","authors":"Ganeev Singh, Laura Corlin, Paul R Beninger, Peter J Neumann, Marcia M Boumil, Shreya Mehta, Deeb N Salem","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231206750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Professional roles within a hospital system may influence attitudes behind clinical decisions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine participants' preferences about clinical decisions that either value equal health care access or efficiency.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Deidentified survey asking participants to choose between offering a low-cost screening test to a whole population (\"equal access\") or a more sensitive, expensive test that could be given to only half of the population but resulting in 10% more avoided deaths (\"efficient\"). Data collection took place from August 18, 2021, to January 24, 2022. Study 1644 was determined to be exempt by Tufts Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tufts Medicine Healthcare System.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Approximately 15,000 hospital employees received an e-mail from the Tufts Medicine Senior Vice President of Academic Integration.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Analysis of survey responses with chi-square and 1-sample <i>t</i> tests to determine the proportion who chose each option. Logistic regression models fit to examine relationships between professional role and test choice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,346 participants completed the survey (∼9.0% response rate). Overall, approximately equal percentages of respondents chose the \"equal access\" (48%) and \"efficient\" option (52%). However, gender, professional role (categorical), and clinical role (dichotomous) were significantly associated with test choice. For example, among those in nonclinical roles, women were more likely than men to choose equal health care access. In multivariable analyses, having clinical roles was significantly associated with 1.73 times the likelihood of choosing equal access (95% confidence interval = 1.33-2.25).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Generalizability concerns and survey question wording limit the study results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinicians were more likely than nonclinicians to choose the equal health care access option, and health care administrators were more likely to choose efficiency. These differing attitudes can affect patient care and health care quality.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Divergent preferences of valuing equal health care access and efficiency may be in conflict during clinical decision making.In this cross-sectional study that included 1,346 participants, approximately equal percentages of respondents chose the \"equal access\" (48%) and \"efficient\" option (52%), a nonsignificant difference. However, gender, professional role (categorical), and clinical role (dichotomous) were significantly associated with test choiceSince clinicians were more likely than nonclinicians to choose the equal health care access option and health care administrators were more likely to choose efficiency, these differing attitudes can affect patient care and health care quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"18-27"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231206750","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Professional roles within a hospital system may influence attitudes behind clinical decisions.

Objective: To determine participants' preferences about clinical decisions that either value equal health care access or efficiency.

Design: Deidentified survey asking participants to choose between offering a low-cost screening test to a whole population ("equal access") or a more sensitive, expensive test that could be given to only half of the population but resulting in 10% more avoided deaths ("efficient"). Data collection took place from August 18, 2021, to January 24, 2022. Study 1644 was determined to be exempt by Tufts Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Setting: Tufts Medicine Healthcare System.

Participants: Approximately 15,000 hospital employees received an e-mail from the Tufts Medicine Senior Vice President of Academic Integration.

Measurements: Analysis of survey responses with chi-square and 1-sample t tests to determine the proportion who chose each option. Logistic regression models fit to examine relationships between professional role and test choice.

Results: A total of 1,346 participants completed the survey (∼9.0% response rate). Overall, approximately equal percentages of respondents chose the "equal access" (48%) and "efficient" option (52%). However, gender, professional role (categorical), and clinical role (dichotomous) were significantly associated with test choice. For example, among those in nonclinical roles, women were more likely than men to choose equal health care access. In multivariable analyses, having clinical roles was significantly associated with 1.73 times the likelihood of choosing equal access (95% confidence interval = 1.33-2.25).

Limitations: Generalizability concerns and survey question wording limit the study results.

Conclusion: Clinicians were more likely than nonclinicians to choose the equal health care access option, and health care administrators were more likely to choose efficiency. These differing attitudes can affect patient care and health care quality.

Highlights: Divergent preferences of valuing equal health care access and efficiency may be in conflict during clinical decision making.In this cross-sectional study that included 1,346 participants, approximately equal percentages of respondents chose the "equal access" (48%) and "efficient" option (52%), a nonsignificant difference. However, gender, professional role (categorical), and clinical role (dichotomous) were significantly associated with test choiceSince clinicians were more likely than nonclinicians to choose the equal health care access option and health care administrators were more likely to choose efficiency, these differing attitudes can affect patient care and health care quality.

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
在非营利性医疗保健系统中,对平等医疗保健机会与有效临床决策的态度。
背景:医院系统中的专业角色可能会影响临床决策背后的态度。目的:确定参与者对重视平等医疗服务或效率的临床决策的偏好。设计:非身份调查要求参与者在向全体人群提供低成本的筛查测试(“平等获取”)或更敏感、更昂贵的测试之间做出选择,该测试只能为一半的人群提供,但可避免10%以上的死亡(“有效”)。数据收集时间为2021年8月18日至2022年1月24日。研究1644被塔夫茨健康科学机构审查委员会(IRB)确定为豁免。设置:塔夫茨医学医疗保健系统。参与者:大约15000名医院员工收到了塔夫茨医学院学术整合高级副总裁的电子邮件。测量:用卡方和单样本t检验分析调查结果,以确定选择的比例每个选项。逻辑回归模型适用于检验职业角色和测试选择之间的关系。结果:共有1346名参与者完成了调查(~9.0%的应答率)。总体而言,选择“平等机会”(48%)和“高效”选项(52%)的受访者比例大致相等。然而,性别、专业角色(分类)和临床角色(二分法)与测试选择显著相关。例如,在非临床角色中,女性比男性更有可能选择平等的医疗服务。在多变量分析中,具有临床角色与选择同等途径的可能性的1.73倍显著相关(95%置信区间 = 1.33-2.25)。局限性:泛化问题和调查问题措辞限制了研究结果。结论:临床医生比非临床医生更有可能选择平等的医疗保健服务,医疗保健管理者更有可能选择效率。这些不同的态度会影响患者护理和医疗质量。亮点:在临床决策过程中,重视平等医疗保健机会和效率的不同偏好可能会发生冲突。在这项包括1346名参与者的横断面研究中,选择“平等机会”(48%)和“有效”选项(52%)的受访者比例大致相等,差异不显著。然而,性别、专业角色(分类)和临床角色(二分法)与测试选择显著相关。由于临床医生比非临床医生更有可能选择平等的医疗保健服务,医疗保健管理人员更有可能选择效率,这些不同的态度会影响患者护理和医疗保健质量。
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
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process. Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab. Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis-Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence. A Sequential Calibration Approach to Address Challenges of Repeated Calibration of a COVID-19 Model. A Longitudinal Study of the Association of Awareness of Disease Incurability with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure.
×
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