Derjung M Tarn1, Debora A Paterniti2,3, Neil S Wenger4. 1. Department of Family Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California-Los Angeles, 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA. dtarn@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Sociology, Sonoma State University, Sacramento, CA, USA. 3. Departments of Internal Medicine and Sociology, University of California-Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about how providers communicate recommendations when scientific uncertainty exists. OBJECTIVES: To compare provider recommendations to those in the scientific literature, with a focus on whether uncertainty was communicated. DESIGN: Qualitative (inductive systematic content analysis) and quantitative analysis of previously collected audio-recorded provider-patient office visits. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one providers and a socio-economically diverse convenience sample of 603 of their patients from outpatient community- and academic-based primary care, integrative medicine, and complementary and alternative medicine provider offices in Southern California. MAIN MEASURES: Comparison of provider information-giving about vitamin D to professional guidelines and scientific information for which conflicting recommendations or insufficient scientific evidence exists; certainty with which information was conveyed. RESULTS: Ninety-two (15.3 %) of 603 visit discussions touched upon issues related to vitamin D testing, management and benefits. Vitamin D deficiency screening was discussed with 23 (25 %) patients, the definition of vitamin D deficiency with 21 (22.8 %), the optimal range for vitamin D levels with 26 (28.3 %), vitamin D supplementation dosing with 50 (54.3 %), and benefits of supplementation with 46 (50 %). For each of the professional guidelines/scientific information examined, providers conveyed information that deviated from professional guidelines and the existing scientific evidence. Of 166 statements made about vitamin D in this study, providers conveyed 160 (96.4 %) with certainty, without mention of any equivocal or contradictory evidence in the scientific literature. No uncertainty was mentioned when vitamin D dosing was discussed, even when recommended dosing was higher than guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Providers convey the vast majority of information and recommendations about vitamin D with certainty, even though the scientific literature contains inconsistent recommendations and declarations of inadequate evidence. Not communicating uncertainty blurs the contrast between evidence-based recommendations and those without evidence. Providers should explore best practices for involving patients in decision-making by acknowledging the uncertainty behind their recommendations.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about how providers communicate recommendations when scientific uncertainty exists. OBJECTIVES: To compare provider recommendations to those in the scientific literature, with a focus on whether uncertainty was communicated. DESIGN: Qualitative (inductive systematic content analysis) and quantitative analysis of previously collected audio-recorded provider-patient office visits. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one providers and a socio-economically diverse convenience sample of 603 of their patients from outpatient community- and academic-based primary care, integrative medicine, and complementary and alternative medicine provider offices in Southern California. MAIN MEASURES: Comparison of provider information-giving about vitamin D to professional guidelines and scientific information for which conflicting recommendations or insufficient scientific evidence exists; certainty with which information was conveyed. RESULTS: Ninety-two (15.3 %) of 603 visit discussions touched upon issues related to vitamin D testing, management and benefits. Vitamin D deficiency screening was discussed with 23 (25 %) patients, the definition of vitamin D deficiency with 21 (22.8 %), the optimal range for vitamin D levels with 26 (28.3 %), vitamin D supplementation dosing with 50 (54.3 %), and benefits of supplementation with 46 (50 %). For each of the professional guidelines/scientific information examined, providers conveyed information that deviated from professional guidelines and the existing scientific evidence. Of 166 statements made about vitamin D in this study, providers conveyed 160 (96.4 %) with certainty, without mention of any equivocal or contradictory evidence in the scientific literature. No uncertainty was mentioned when vitamin D dosing was discussed, even when recommended dosing was higher than guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Providers convey the vast majority of information and recommendations about vitamin D with certainty, even though the scientific literature contains inconsistent recommendations and declarations of inadequate evidence. Not communicating uncertainty blurs the contrast between evidence-based recommendations and those without evidence. Providers should explore best practices for involving patients in decision-making by acknowledging the uncertainty behind their recommendations.
Entities:
Keywords:
complementary and alternative medicine; dietary supplements; provider–patient relations; qualitative research methods; scientific uncertainty; vitamin D
Authors: Clifford J Rosen; Steven A Abrams; John F Aloia; Patsy M Brannon; Steven K Clinton; Ramon A Durazo-Arvizu; J Christopher Gallagher; Richard L Gallo; Glenville Jones; Christopher S Kovacs; JoAnn E Manson; Susan T Mayne; A Catharine Ross; Sue A Shapses; Christine L Taylor Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Michael F Holick; Neil C Binkley; Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Catherine M Gordon; David A Hanley; Robert P Heaney; M Hassan Murad; Connie M Weaver Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Leila Rooshenas; Daisy Elliott; Julia Wade; Marcus Jepson; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Sean Strong; Caroline Wilson; David Beard; Jane M Blazeby; Alison Birtle; Alison Halliday; Chris A Rogers; Rob Stein; Jenny L Donovan Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 11.069