Sarah L Goff1, Kathleen M Mazor2, Henry H Ting3, Reva Kleppel4, Michael B Rothberg5. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine/Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts2The Center for Quality of Care Research, Tufts University School of Medicine/Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts. 2. Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine/Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Medicine Institute, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) attribute greater benefit to percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) than indicated in clinical trials. Little is known about how cardiologists' presentation of the benefits and risks may influence patients' perceptions. OBJECTIVES: To broadly describe the content of discussions between patients and cardiologists regarding angiogram and PCI for stable CAD, and to describe elements that may affect patients' understanding. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative content analysis of encounters between cardiologists and patients with stable CAD who participated in the Verilogue Point-of-Practice Database between March 1, 2008, and August 31, 2012. Transcripts in which angiogram and PCI were discussed were retrieved from the database. Patients were aged 44 to 88 years (median, 64 years); 25% were women; 50% reported symptoms of angina; and 6% were taking more than 1 medication to treat angina. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Results of conventional and directed qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Forty encounters were analyzed. Five major categories and subcategories of factors that may affect patients' understanding of benefit were identified: (1) rationale for recommending angiogram and PCI (eg, stress test results, symptoms, and cardiologist's preferences); (2) discussion of benefits (eg, accurate discussion of benefit [5%], explicitly overstated benefit [13%], and implicitly overstated benefit [35%]); (3) discussion of risks (eg, minimization of risk); (4) cardiologist's communication style (eg, humor, teach-back, message framing, and failure to respond to patient questions); and (5) patient and family member contributions to the discussion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Few cardiologists discussed the evidence-based benefits of angiogram and PCI for stable CAD, and some implicitly or explicitly overstated the benefits. The etiology of patient misunderstanding is likely multifactorial, but if future quantitative studies support the findings of this hypothesis-generating analysis, modifications to cardiologists' approach to describing the risks and benefits of the procedure may improve patient understanding.
IMPORTANCE: Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) attribute greater benefit to percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) than indicated in clinical trials. Little is known about how cardiologists' presentation of the benefits and risks may influence patients' perceptions. OBJECTIVES: To broadly describe the content of discussions between patients and cardiologists regarding angiogram and PCI for stable CAD, and to describe elements that may affect patients' understanding. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative content analysis of encounters between cardiologists and patients with stable CAD who participated in the Verilogue Point-of-Practice Database between March 1, 2008, and August 31, 2012. Transcripts in which angiogram and PCI were discussed were retrieved from the database. Patients were aged 44 to 88 years (median, 64 years); 25% were women; 50% reported symptoms of angina; and 6% were taking more than 1 medication to treat angina. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Results of conventional and directed qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Forty encounters were analyzed. Five major categories and subcategories of factors that may affect patients' understanding of benefit were identified: (1) rationale for recommending angiogram and PCI (eg, stress test results, symptoms, and cardiologist's preferences); (2) discussion of benefits (eg, accurate discussion of benefit [5%], explicitly overstated benefit [13%], and implicitly overstated benefit [35%]); (3) discussion of risks (eg, minimization of risk); (4) cardiologist's communication style (eg, humor, teach-back, message framing, and failure to respond to patient questions); and (5) patient and family member contributions to the discussion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Few cardiologists discussed the evidence-based benefits of angiogram and PCI for stable CAD, and some implicitly or explicitly overstated the benefits. The etiology of patient misunderstanding is likely multifactorial, but if future quantitative studies support the findings of this hypothesis-generating analysis, modifications to cardiologists' approach to describing the risks and benefits of the procedure may improve patient understanding.
Authors: France Légaré; Stéphane Turcotte; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Ratté; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham Journal: Patient Date: 2012 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; William S Weintraub; David J Maron; Pamela M Hartigan; Rory Hachamovitch; James K Min; Marcin Dada; G B John Mancini; Sean W Hayes; Robert A O'Rourke; John A Spertus; William Kostuk; Gilbert Gosselin; Bernard R Chaitman; Merill Knudtson; John Friedman; Piotr Slomka; Guido Germano; Eric R Bates; Koon K Teo; William E Boden; Daniel S Berman Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Floyd J Fowler; Patricia M Gallagher; Julie P W Bynum; Michael J Barry; F Leslie Lucas; Jonathan S Skinner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Megan Coylewright; Kathy Shepel; Annie Leblanc; Laurie Pencille; Erik Hess; Nilay Shah; Victor M Montori; Henry H Ting Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sarah L Goff; Nwamaka D Eneanya; Rebecca Feinberg; Michael J Germain; Lisa Marr; Joan Berzoff; Lewis M Cohen; Mark Unruh Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Alison T Brenner; Teri L Malo; Marjorie Margolis; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Shynah James; Maihan B Vu; Daniel S Reuland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: John M Stern; Fernando Cendes; Frank Gilliam; Patrick Kwan; Philippe Ryvlin; Joseph Sirven; Brien Smith; Aleksandra Adomas; Lauren Walter Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2018-04