How are patient characteristics relevant for physicians' clinical decision making in diabetes? An analysis of qualitative results from a cross-national factorial experiment

New England Research Institutes, Institute for Community Health Studies, 9 Galen Street, Watertown, MA 02472, United States.
Social Science & Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.56). 09/2008; 67(9):1391-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.07.005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Variations in medical practice have been widely documented and are a linchpin in explanations of health disparities. Evidence shows that clinical decision making varies according to patient, provider and health system characteristics. However, less is known about the processes underlying these aggregate associations and how physicians interpret various patient attributes. Verbal protocol analysis (otherwise known as 'think-aloud') techniques were used to analyze open-ended data from 244 physicians to examine which patient characteristics physicians identify as relevant for their decision making. Data are from a vignette-based factorial experiment measuring the effects of: (a) patient attributes (age, gender, race and socioeconomic status); (b) physician characteristics (gender and years of clinical experience); and (c) features of the healthcare system in two countries (USA, United Kingdom) on clinical decision making for diabetes. We find that physicians used patients' demographic characteristics only as a starting point in their assessments, and proceeded to make detailed assessments about cognitive ability, motivation, social support and other factors they consider predictive of adherence with medical recommendations and therefore relevant to treatment decisions. These non-medical characteristics of patients were mentioned with much greater consistency than traditional biophysiologic markers of risk such as race, gender, and age. Types of explanations identified varied somewhat according to patient characteristics and to the country in which the interview took place. Results show that basic demographic characteristics are inadequate to the task of capturing information physicians draw from doctor-patient encounters, and that in order to fully understand differential clinical decision making there is a need to move beyond documentation of aggregate associations and further explore the mental and social processes at work.

Download full-text


Available from: Karen E Lutfey, Apr 03, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A proliferating literature documents cross-national variation in medical practice and seeks to explain observed differences in terms of the presence of certain kinds of healthcare systems, economic, and cultural differences between countries. Less is known about how providers themselves understand these influences and perceive them as relevant to their clinical work. Using qualitative data from a cross-national factorial experiment in the United States and United Kingdom, we analyze 244 primary care physicians' explanations of how organizational features of their respective healthcare settings influence the treatment decisions they made for a vignette patient, including affordability of care; within-system quality deficits; and constraints due to patient behavior. While many differences are attributed to financial constraints deriving from two very differently structured healthcare systems, in other ways they are reflections of cultural and historical expectations regarding medical care, or interactions between the two. Implications, including possible challenges to the implementation of universal care in the USA, are discussed.
    Health 12/2010; 16(1):40-56. DOI:10.1177/1363459310371079 · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Literature on health disparities documents variations in clinical decision-making across patient characteristics, physician attributes, and among health care systems. Using data from a vignette-based factorial experiment of 256 primary care providers, we examine the cognitive basis of disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD). We explore whether previously observed disparities are due to physicians (1) not fully considering CHD for certain patients or (2) considering CHD but then discounting it. Half of the physicians in the experiment were primed with explicit directions to consider a CHD diagnosis, and half were not. Relative to their unprimed counterparts, primed physicians were more likely to order CHD-related tests and prescriptions. However, the main effects for patient gender and age remained, suggesting that physicians treated these demographic variables as diagnostic features indicating lower risk of CHD for these patients. This finding suggests that physician appeals to perceived base rates have the potential to contribute to the further reification of socially constructed health statistics.
    Journal of Health and Social Behavior 03/2010; 51(1):16-29. DOI:10.1177/0022146509361193 · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An empirical puzzle has emerged over the last several decades of research on variation in clinical decision making involving mixed effects of physician experience. There is some evidence that physicians with greater experience may provide poorer quality care than their less experienced counterparts, as captured by various quality assurance measures. Physician experience is traditionally narrowly defined as years in practice or age, and there is a need for investigation into precisely what happens to physicians as they gain experience, including the reasoning and clinical skills acquired over time and the ways in which physicians consciously implement those skills into their work. In this study, we are concerned with 1) how physicians conceptualize and describe the meaning of their clinical experience, and 2) how they use their experience in clinical practice. To address these questions, we analyzed qualitative data drawn from in-depth interviews with physicians from the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany as a part of a larger factorial experiment of medical decision making for diabetes. Our results show that common measures of physician experience do not fully capture the skills physicians acquire over time or how they implement those skills in their clinical work. We found that what physicians actually gain over time is complex social, behavioral and intuitive wisdom as well as the ability to compare the present day patient against similar past patients. These active cognitive reasoning processes are essential components of a forward-looking research agenda in the area of physician experience and decision making. Guideline-based outcome measures, accompanied by underdeveloped age- and years-based definitions of experience, may prematurely conclude that more experienced physicians are providing deficient care while overlooking the ways in which they are providing more and better care than their less experienced counterparts.
    Social Science [?] Medicine 03/2010; 70(11):1728-36. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.014 · 2.56 Impact Factor