PURPOSE: Lack of medication intensification is a widely recognized but poorly understood barrier to effective diabetes care. We used a video case vignette to assess whether patient or physician demographic variables influence the decision to intensify therapy. METHODS: One hundred ninety-two US primary care physicians each viewed one case vignette of an actor portraying a patient who had type 2 diabetes and borderline indications for medication intensification. Case vignettes were clinically identical and differed only by patient age (35 or 65 years old); sex; race/ethnicity (white, Hispanic, or black); and socioeconomic status (occupation of lawyer or janitor). After viewing the vignette and indicating their management plans, physicians were also asked to discuss the challenges related to managing such a patient. RESULTS: Just over half (53%) of physicians indicated that they would recommend a medication prescription for the vignette patient. Demographic characteristics (of the patient, physician, or practice) did not significantly influence this decision (P > .1 for all comparisons). Compared with physicians who did not recommend a diabetic-related prescription, physicians recommending therapy more often identified patient medication costs (74% vs 43% of physicians who would not increase therapy); medication adherence (63% vs 49%); and subsequent complications (34% vs 22%) as important clinical issues in managing diabetes. Physicians not intensifying therapy more often indicated that they needed more clinical information (16% vs 9%). CONCLUSIONS: Using an experimental design we found that differences in the decision to intensify therapy were not significantly explained by patient, physician, or practice demographic variables. Physicians who intensified therapy were more likely to consider issues such as medication costs, patient adherence, and downstream complications.
PURPOSE: Lack of medication intensification is a widely recognized but poorly understood barrier to effective diabetes care. We used a video case vignette to assess whether patient or physician demographic variables influence the decision to intensify therapy. METHODS: One hundred ninety-two US primary care physicians each viewed one case vignette of an actor portraying a patient who had type 2 diabetes and borderline indications for medication intensification. Case vignettes were clinically identical and differed only by patient age (35 or 65 years old); sex; race/ethnicity (white, Hispanic, or black); and socioeconomic status (occupation of lawyer or janitor). After viewing the vignette and indicating their management plans, physicians were also asked to discuss the challenges related to managing such a patient. RESULTS: Just over half (53%) of physicians indicated that they would recommend a medication prescription for the vignette patient. Demographic characteristics (of the patient, physician, or practice) did not significantly influence this decision (P > .1 for all comparisons). Compared with physicians who did not recommend a diabetic-related prescription, physicians recommending therapy more often identified patient medication costs (74% vs 43% of physicians who would not increase therapy); medication adherence (63% vs 49%); and subsequent complications (34% vs 22%) as important clinical issues in managing diabetes. Physicians not intensifying therapy more often indicated that they needed more clinical information (16% vs 9%). CONCLUSIONS: Using an experimental design we found that differences in the decision to intensify therapy were not significantly explained by patient, physician, or practice demographic variables. Physicians who intensified therapy were more likely to consider issues such as medication costs, patient adherence, and downstream complications.
Authors: H A Feldman; J B McKinlay; D A Potter; K M Freund; R B Burns; M A Moskowitz; L E Kasten Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: K A Schulman; J A Berlin; W Harless; J F Kerner; S Sistrunk; B J Gersh; R Dubé; C K Taleghani; J E Burke; S Williams; J M Eisenberg; J J Escarce Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-02-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dan R Berlowitz; Arlene S Ash; Elaine C Hickey; Mark Glickman; Robert Friedman; Boris Kader Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Charles Senteio; Julia Adler-Milstein; Caroline Richardson; Tiffany Veinot Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Alice J Watson; Julia O'Rourke; Kamal Jethwani; Aurel Cami; Theodore A Stern; Joseph C Kvedar; Henry C Chueh; Adrian H Zai Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Rebecca S Etz; Rosalind E Keith; Anna M Maternick; Karen L Stein; Roy T Sabo; Melissa S Hayes; Purvi Sevak; John Holland; Jesse C Crosson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Carla Castillo-Laborde; Macarena Hirmas-Adauy; Isabel Matute; Anita Jasmen; Oscar Urrejola; Xaviera Molina; Camila Awad; Catalina Frey-Moreno; Sofia Pumarino-Lira; Fernando Descalzi-Rojas; Tomás José Ruiz; Barbara Plass Journal: Public Health Rev Date: 2022-09-02