Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) challenges health and quality of life of patients, families, and communities. Patients with comorbid depression are more likely to develop macrovascular and microvascular complicatio...Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) challenges health and quality of life of patients, families, and communities. Patients with comorbid depression are more likely to develop macrovascular and microvascular complications. The aim was to assess glycemic control and adherence in diabetic patients with comorbid depression. Further, the study evaluated the relationship between adherence and the physician-patient relationship. Methods: The study was conducted at Al-Agouza Family Medicine Center (AFMC) between February 2018 and March 2020. The included patients were between 35 - 80 years of age;had type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 6.5%, fasting plasma glucose ≥ 126 mg/dl, and scored between 11 - 30 on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Logistic regression, chi-square, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to assess the relationship between depression, adherence, physician-patient relationship, and other variables. Results: The study included 100 eligible patients with a median BDI score of 20 (10 - 30). The median diabetic panel for patients was FBS 188 (126 - 348) mg/dl, PPS 282.50 (162 - 448) mg/dl, and HbA1c 9.5 (6.6 - 14.0)%. Depression and regular follow-up visits were statistically associated with improvement of diabetes symptoms (p = 0.019). There was a significant relationship (p 0.001) between adherence, regular follow-up visits, and knowledge of DM. Further, there was a significant relationship between the physician-patient relationship and DM improvement (p = 0.047). Conclusion: Physician-patient relationship was paramount to improving adherence and positive diabetes care. Our findings suggest a shift to a physician-patient relationship model with mutual agreement on medical decisions is highly recommended.展开更多
AIM:To determine whether a communication instru-ment provided to patients prior to their primary carephysician(PCP)visit initiates a conversation with theirPCP about colorectal cancer screening(CRC-S),impact-ing scree...AIM:To determine whether a communication instru-ment provided to patients prior to their primary carephysician(PCP)visit initiates a conversation with theirPCP about colorectal cancer screening(CRC-S),impact-ing screening referral rates in fully insured and underin-sured patients.METHODS:A prospective randomized control studywas performed at a single academic center outpatient internal medicine(IRMC,underinsured)and fam-ily medicine(FMRC,insured)resident clinics prior to scheduled visits.In the intervention group,a pamphlet about the benefit of CRC-S and a reminder card were given to patients before the scheduled visit for prompt-ing of CRC-S referral by their PCP.The main outcome measured was frequency of CRC-S referral in each clinic after intervention.RESULTS:In the IRMC,148 patients participated,a control group of 72 patients(40F and 32M)and 76 patients(48F and 28M)in the intervention group.Re-ferrals for CRC-S occurred in 45/72(63%)of control vs 70/76(92%)in the intervention group(P≤0.001).In the FMRC,126 patients participated,66(39F:27M)con-trol and 60(33F:27M)in the intervention group.CRC-S referrals occurred in 47/66(71%)of controls vs 56/60(98%)in the intervention group(P≤0.001).CONCLUSION:Patient initiated physician prompting produced a significant referral increase for CRC-S in un-derinsured and insured patient populations.Additional investigation aimed at increasing CRC-S acceptance is warranted.展开更多
Background: The aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of the true importance of trust in clinical practice by looking at how it is formed, how it affects clinical practice, and how to improve it. Methods...Background: The aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of the true importance of trust in clinical practice by looking at how it is formed, how it affects clinical practice, and how to improve it. Methods: Using the PRISMA-ScR checklist, a review of the literature was performed to identify research evaluating the importance of trust in the doctor-patient relationship. After thorough screening and removal of duplicates, 21 articles were used in the literature review. Results: The classifying themes that emerged in the selected articles were What Makes Trust and Effects of Trust. The theme of What Makes Trust garnered two subthemes as well: Impact of Doctor-Patient Relationship on Trust and Impact of Shared Decision-Making on Trust. Further to that, the overarching themes found were slightly more specific. They were Traits of Trust, Mistrust and Barriers to Trust, Positive Effects of Trust and the Effects of a Lack of Trust. We found that the best way to improve trust was to improve communication between the patient and the doctor. Additionally, we found that the biggest barrier to a trusting doctor patient relationship was a stigmatised condition, followed by a perception of a financially-motivated doctor. Finally, we found that a lack of trust can prevent patients from seeking and receiving proper treatment. Conclusions: With a better understanding of how trust is built and the extent of the role it plays in clinical practice, we hope that this growing knowledge can improve the practice of many doctors in the future. It is certain that more research needs to be done in this area, especially focusing on vulnerable and stigmatised populations such as chronic pain patients.展开更多
The goal of this study was to track the influence of a highly publicized report on discussions between doctors and their patients and prescribing decisions made in response to concerns about potential medication adver...The goal of this study was to track the influence of a highly publicized report on discussions between doctors and their patients and prescribing decisions made in response to concerns about potential medication adverse side effects. This was a retrospective analysis of a primary care network’s electronic medical record database. From a diabetes registry of 12, 246 patients, 329 were identified as taking rosiglitazone prior to the June 14, 2007 release of an article in the New England Journal of Medicine;the article suggesting an increased risk of myocardial events. The entire content of all office visits, telephone messages, and medication lists for each patient were reviewed over a 2-year period subsequent to the article’s publication. Doctor/patient discussions regarding concerns for rosiglitazone were catalogued including the physician’s treatment recommendations. There were documented discussions on rosiglitazone’s potential adverse side effects for 64 patients;19.5 percent of this population. All of the discussions occurred between June 15 and October 30, 2007. Of the entire group, 59.3 percent (N = 195) remained on rosiglitazone. For those advised to continue rosiglitazone, the provider indicated that he/she wanted more data before determining if the drug was not safe or discounted the validity of the safety concerns. For those advised to discontinue rosiglitazone, 112 (83.6 percent) were placed on pioglitazone. An article suggesting potential adverse effects of rosiglitazone resulted in a documented discussion in 19.5 percent of patients on this medication. These findings suggest an awareness of this publication by patients, presumably derived from media reports. However, an awareness of this concern did not result in a substantial change in practice.The majority of patients remained on rosiglitazone. The content of these discussions suggest that most physicians’ recommended waiting for more published data before considering a change. While many factors influence physician’s prescribing behavior, this study demonstrates how a highly publicized report influences the doctor/ patient dialogue.展开更多
文摘Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) challenges health and quality of life of patients, families, and communities. Patients with comorbid depression are more likely to develop macrovascular and microvascular complications. The aim was to assess glycemic control and adherence in diabetic patients with comorbid depression. Further, the study evaluated the relationship between adherence and the physician-patient relationship. Methods: The study was conducted at Al-Agouza Family Medicine Center (AFMC) between February 2018 and March 2020. The included patients were between 35 - 80 years of age;had type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 6.5%, fasting plasma glucose ≥ 126 mg/dl, and scored between 11 - 30 on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Logistic regression, chi-square, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to assess the relationship between depression, adherence, physician-patient relationship, and other variables. Results: The study included 100 eligible patients with a median BDI score of 20 (10 - 30). The median diabetic panel for patients was FBS 188 (126 - 348) mg/dl, PPS 282.50 (162 - 448) mg/dl, and HbA1c 9.5 (6.6 - 14.0)%. Depression and regular follow-up visits were statistically associated with improvement of diabetes symptoms (p = 0.019). There was a significant relationship (p 0.001) between adherence, regular follow-up visits, and knowledge of DM. Further, there was a significant relationship between the physician-patient relationship and DM improvement (p = 0.047). Conclusion: Physician-patient relationship was paramount to improving adherence and positive diabetes care. Our findings suggest a shift to a physician-patient relationship model with mutual agreement on medical decisions is highly recommended.
文摘AIM:To determine whether a communication instru-ment provided to patients prior to their primary carephysician(PCP)visit initiates a conversation with theirPCP about colorectal cancer screening(CRC-S),impact-ing screening referral rates in fully insured and underin-sured patients.METHODS:A prospective randomized control studywas performed at a single academic center outpatient internal medicine(IRMC,underinsured)and fam-ily medicine(FMRC,insured)resident clinics prior to scheduled visits.In the intervention group,a pamphlet about the benefit of CRC-S and a reminder card were given to patients before the scheduled visit for prompt-ing of CRC-S referral by their PCP.The main outcome measured was frequency of CRC-S referral in each clinic after intervention.RESULTS:In the IRMC,148 patients participated,a control group of 72 patients(40F and 32M)and 76 patients(48F and 28M)in the intervention group.Re-ferrals for CRC-S occurred in 45/72(63%)of control vs 70/76(92%)in the intervention group(P≤0.001).In the FMRC,126 patients participated,66(39F:27M)con-trol and 60(33F:27M)in the intervention group.CRC-S referrals occurred in 47/66(71%)of controls vs 56/60(98%)in the intervention group(P≤0.001).CONCLUSION:Patient initiated physician prompting produced a significant referral increase for CRC-S in un-derinsured and insured patient populations.Additional investigation aimed at increasing CRC-S acceptance is warranted.
文摘Background: The aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of the true importance of trust in clinical practice by looking at how it is formed, how it affects clinical practice, and how to improve it. Methods: Using the PRISMA-ScR checklist, a review of the literature was performed to identify research evaluating the importance of trust in the doctor-patient relationship. After thorough screening and removal of duplicates, 21 articles were used in the literature review. Results: The classifying themes that emerged in the selected articles were What Makes Trust and Effects of Trust. The theme of What Makes Trust garnered two subthemes as well: Impact of Doctor-Patient Relationship on Trust and Impact of Shared Decision-Making on Trust. Further to that, the overarching themes found were slightly more specific. They were Traits of Trust, Mistrust and Barriers to Trust, Positive Effects of Trust and the Effects of a Lack of Trust. We found that the best way to improve trust was to improve communication between the patient and the doctor. Additionally, we found that the biggest barrier to a trusting doctor patient relationship was a stigmatised condition, followed by a perception of a financially-motivated doctor. Finally, we found that a lack of trust can prevent patients from seeking and receiving proper treatment. Conclusions: With a better understanding of how trust is built and the extent of the role it plays in clinical practice, we hope that this growing knowledge can improve the practice of many doctors in the future. It is certain that more research needs to be done in this area, especially focusing on vulnerable and stigmatised populations such as chronic pain patients.
文摘The goal of this study was to track the influence of a highly publicized report on discussions between doctors and their patients and prescribing decisions made in response to concerns about potential medication adverse side effects. This was a retrospective analysis of a primary care network’s electronic medical record database. From a diabetes registry of 12, 246 patients, 329 were identified as taking rosiglitazone prior to the June 14, 2007 release of an article in the New England Journal of Medicine;the article suggesting an increased risk of myocardial events. The entire content of all office visits, telephone messages, and medication lists for each patient were reviewed over a 2-year period subsequent to the article’s publication. Doctor/patient discussions regarding concerns for rosiglitazone were catalogued including the physician’s treatment recommendations. There were documented discussions on rosiglitazone’s potential adverse side effects for 64 patients;19.5 percent of this population. All of the discussions occurred between June 15 and October 30, 2007. Of the entire group, 59.3 percent (N = 195) remained on rosiglitazone. For those advised to continue rosiglitazone, the provider indicated that he/she wanted more data before determining if the drug was not safe or discounted the validity of the safety concerns. For those advised to discontinue rosiglitazone, 112 (83.6 percent) were placed on pioglitazone. An article suggesting potential adverse effects of rosiglitazone resulted in a documented discussion in 19.5 percent of patients on this medication. These findings suggest an awareness of this publication by patients, presumably derived from media reports. However, an awareness of this concern did not result in a substantial change in practice.The majority of patients remained on rosiglitazone. The content of these discussions suggest that most physicians’ recommended waiting for more published data before considering a change. While many factors influence physician’s prescribing behavior, this study demonstrates how a highly publicized report influences the doctor/ patient dialogue.
