影响医生预后的因素:一项范围综述。

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2022-12-22 eCollection Date: 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683221145158
Amaryllis Ferrand, Jelena Poleksic, Eric Racine
{"title":"影响医生预后的因素:一项范围综述。","authors":"Amaryllis Ferrand, Jelena Poleksic, Eric Racine","doi":"10.1177/23814683221145158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction.</b> Prognosis is an essential component of informed consent for medical decision making. Research shows that physicians display discrepancies in their prognostication, leading to variable, inaccurate, optimistic, or pessimistic prognosis. Factors driving these discrepancies and the supporting evidence have not been reviewed systematically. <b>Methods.</b> We undertook a scoping review to explore the literature on the factors leading to discrepancies in medical prognosis. We searched Medline (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases for peer-reviewed articles from 1970 to 2017. We included articles that discussed prognosis variation or discrepancy and where factors influencing prognosis were evaluated. We extracted data outlining the participants, methodology, and prognosis discrepancy information and measured factors influencing prognosis. <b>Results.</b> Of 4,723 articles, 73 were included in the final analysis. There was significant variability in research methodologies. Most articles showed that physicians were pessimistic regarding patient outcomes, particularly in early trainees and acute care specialties. Accuracy rates were similar across all time periods. Factors influencing prognosis were clustered in 4 categories: patient-related factors (such as age, gender, race, diagnosis), physician-related factors (such as age, race, gender, specialty, training and experience, attitudes and values), clinical situation-related factors (such as physician-patient relationship, patient location, and clinical context), and environmental-related factors (such as country or hospital size). <b>Discussion.</b> Obtaining accurate prognostic information is one of the highest priorities for seriously ill patients. The literature shows trends toward pessimism, especially in early trainees and acute care specialties. While some factors may prove difficult to change, the physician's personality and psychology influence prognosis accuracy and could be tackled using debiasing strategies. Exposure to long-term patient outcomes and a multidisciplinary practice setting are environmental debiasing strategies that may warrant further research.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Literature on discrepancies in physician's prognostication is heterogeneous and sparse.Literature shows that physicians are mostly pessimistic regarding patient outcomes.Literature shows that a physician's personality and psychology influence prognostic accuracy and could be improved with evidence-based debiasing strategies.Medical specialty strongly influences prognosis, with specialties exposed to acutely ill patients being more pessimistic, whereas specialties following patients longitudinally being more optimistic.Physicians early in their training were more pessimist than more experienced physicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"7 2","pages":"23814683221145158"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/96/e3/10.1177_23814683221145158.PMC9793048.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors Influencing Physician Prognosis: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Amaryllis Ferrand, Jelena Poleksic, Eric Racine\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23814683221145158\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction.</b> Prognosis is an essential component of informed consent for medical decision making. Research shows that physicians display discrepancies in their prognostication, leading to variable, inaccurate, optimistic, or pessimistic prognosis. Factors driving these discrepancies and the supporting evidence have not been reviewed systematically. <b>Methods.</b> We undertook a scoping review to explore the literature on the factors leading to discrepancies in medical prognosis. We searched Medline (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases for peer-reviewed articles from 1970 to 2017. We included articles that discussed prognosis variation or discrepancy and where factors influencing prognosis were evaluated. We extracted data outlining the participants, methodology, and prognosis discrepancy information and measured factors influencing prognosis. <b>Results.</b> Of 4,723 articles, 73 were included in the final analysis. There was significant variability in research methodologies. Most articles showed that physicians were pessimistic regarding patient outcomes, particularly in early trainees and acute care specialties. Accuracy rates were similar across all time periods. Factors influencing prognosis were clustered in 4 categories: patient-related factors (such as age, gender, race, diagnosis), physician-related factors (such as age, race, gender, specialty, training and experience, attitudes and values), clinical situation-related factors (such as physician-patient relationship, patient location, and clinical context), and environmental-related factors (such as country or hospital size). <b>Discussion.</b> Obtaining accurate prognostic information is one of the highest priorities for seriously ill patients. The literature shows trends toward pessimism, especially in early trainees and acute care specialties. While some factors may prove difficult to change, the physician's personality and psychology influence prognosis accuracy and could be tackled using debiasing strategies. Exposure to long-term patient outcomes and a multidisciplinary practice setting are environmental debiasing strategies that may warrant further research.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Literature on discrepancies in physician's prognostication is heterogeneous and sparse.Literature shows that physicians are mostly pessimistic regarding patient outcomes.Literature shows that a physician's personality and psychology influence prognostic accuracy and could be improved with evidence-based debiasing strategies.Medical specialty strongly influences prognosis, with specialties exposed to acutely ill patients being more pessimistic, whereas specialties following patients longitudinally being more optimistic.Physicians early in their training were more pessimist than more experienced physicians.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\"7 2\",\"pages\":\"23814683221145158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/96/e3/10.1177_23814683221145158.PMC9793048.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221145158\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221145158","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍。预后是医疗决策知情同意的重要组成部分。研究表明,医生的预测存在差异,导致预后不稳定、不准确、乐观或悲观。导致这些差异的因素和支持证据尚未得到系统的审查。方法。我们进行了一项范围综述,以探讨导致医学预后差异因素的文献。我们在Medline (Ovid)和Embase (Ovid)数据库中检索1970年至2017年的同行评议文章。我们纳入了讨论预后变化或差异以及评估影响预后因素的文章。我们提取了概述参与者、方法和预后差异信息的数据,并测量了影响预后的因素。结果。在4,723篇文章中,有73篇被纳入最终分析。研究方法有显著的可变性。大多数文章表明,医生对患者的预后持悲观态度,特别是在早期培训生和急性护理专科。准确率在所有时间段都是相似的。影响预后的因素分为4类:患者相关因素(如年龄、性别、种族、诊断)、医生相关因素(如年龄、种族、性别、专业、培训和经验、态度和价值观)、临床情况相关因素(如医患关系、患者位置和临床环境)和环境相关因素(如国家或医院规模)。讨论。获得准确的预后信息是重症患者最优先考虑的问题之一。文献显示悲观主义的趋势,特别是在早期受训人员和急症专科。虽然有些因素可能很难改变,但医生的个性和心理会影响预后的准确性,可以通过消除偏见的策略来解决。暴露于长期的患者结果和多学科的实践设置是环境消除偏见的策略,可能需要进一步的研究。重点:文献差异在医生的预测是异质和稀疏。文献显示,医生大多对病人的治疗结果持悲观态度。文献显示,医生的个性和心理会影响预后的准确性,并可通过循证去偏策略加以改善。医学专业对预后有强烈影响,接触急性病人的专业更悲观,而纵向跟随病人的专业更乐观。早期接受培训的医生比更有经验的医生更悲观。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Factors Influencing Physician Prognosis: A Scoping Review.

Introduction. Prognosis is an essential component of informed consent for medical decision making. Research shows that physicians display discrepancies in their prognostication, leading to variable, inaccurate, optimistic, or pessimistic prognosis. Factors driving these discrepancies and the supporting evidence have not been reviewed systematically. Methods. We undertook a scoping review to explore the literature on the factors leading to discrepancies in medical prognosis. We searched Medline (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases for peer-reviewed articles from 1970 to 2017. We included articles that discussed prognosis variation or discrepancy and where factors influencing prognosis were evaluated. We extracted data outlining the participants, methodology, and prognosis discrepancy information and measured factors influencing prognosis. Results. Of 4,723 articles, 73 were included in the final analysis. There was significant variability in research methodologies. Most articles showed that physicians were pessimistic regarding patient outcomes, particularly in early trainees and acute care specialties. Accuracy rates were similar across all time periods. Factors influencing prognosis were clustered in 4 categories: patient-related factors (such as age, gender, race, diagnosis), physician-related factors (such as age, race, gender, specialty, training and experience, attitudes and values), clinical situation-related factors (such as physician-patient relationship, patient location, and clinical context), and environmental-related factors (such as country or hospital size). Discussion. Obtaining accurate prognostic information is one of the highest priorities for seriously ill patients. The literature shows trends toward pessimism, especially in early trainees and acute care specialties. While some factors may prove difficult to change, the physician's personality and psychology influence prognosis accuracy and could be tackled using debiasing strategies. Exposure to long-term patient outcomes and a multidisciplinary practice setting are environmental debiasing strategies that may warrant further research.

Highlights: Literature on discrepancies in physician's prognostication is heterogeneous and sparse.Literature shows that physicians are mostly pessimistic regarding patient outcomes.Literature shows that a physician's personality and psychology influence prognostic accuracy and could be improved with evidence-based debiasing strategies.Medical specialty strongly influences prognosis, with specialties exposed to acutely ill patients being more pessimistic, whereas specialties following patients longitudinally being more optimistic.Physicians early in their training were more pessimist than more experienced physicians.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prioritizing Patients from the Most Deprived Areas on Elective Waiting Lists in the NHS in England: Estimating the Health and Health Inequality Impact. Optimizing Masks and Random Screening Test Usage within K-12 Schools. Associations of Concordant and Shared Lung Cancer Screening Decision Making with Decisional Conflict: A Multi-Institution Cross-Sectional Analysis. Implications of Diminishing Lifespan Marginal Utility for Valuing Equity in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Evaluation of the Soda Tax on Obesity and Diabetes in California: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
×
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