ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015
Values and risks of second opinion in Japan's universal health-care system.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Potentially inappropriate prescribing in polymedicated older adults with atrial fibrillation and multimorbidity: a Swedish national register-based cohort study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Predictive factors of diagnostic and therapeutic divergence in a nationwide cohort of patients seeking second medical opinion.BMC health services research · 2021Observational
- The market landscape of online second opinion services for spine surgery.Surgical neurology international · 2020Article
- Outcome Assessment for a Telemedicine-Based Second Opinion Program for Midwest China.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSecond opinion (SO) is widely recognized in Japan, but we do not know how patients view and use SO.
objectivesTo investigate optimum seeking of SO in Japan's universal health-care system. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND
methodsSurvey of patients at Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital. Of 365 responses, 67 had experienced SO with standardized protocol at SO Clinic; 82 had obtained SO elsewhere without instruction; 216 had never sought SO.
main outcome measuresViews of values and risks of SO.
resultsSecond opinion patients with standardized protocol better understood their illness, treatment options, individualized plan, and uncertainty in medicine, and also reported improved decision making compared with SO patients without the protocol (P < 0.05). However, more than half of respondents misunderstood SO as a way to change doctors or treatment. Second opinion respondents (n = 149) had a propensity to request treatment changes (P < 0.1) and more than one-third (n = 82) did not tell SO doctor they were being treated by another doctor. The absolute majority of non-SO patients would seek SO for a serious illness but would hesitate to tell their doctors. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionRespondents recognized value of SO to improve understanding and decision making. This study also found risks in SO misuse which may be reinforced by Japan's cultural tendencies and universal health-care system. Our findings suggest steps to increase the benefit of SO: ensure involvement of original doctor, instruct patients about SO and help them organize their thinking before SO and facilitate patients' return to the treating doctor for discussion and decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.