Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23881272›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2014

Exploring public attitudes towards approaches to discussing costs in the clinical encounter.

Marion Danis, Roseanna Sommers, Jean Logan, Beverly Weidmer, Shirley Chen, Susan Goold, Steven Pearson, Greer Donley, Elizabeth McGlynn

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Impact of Cost Conversation on Decision-Making Outcomes.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. How Would Low-Income Communities Prioritize Medicaid Spending?Journal of health politics, policy and law · 2020
    Article
  10. How Do Attending Physicians Prepare Residents to Deliver High-Value, Cost-Conscious Care?Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. What Strategies Do Physicians and Patients Discuss to Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs? Analysis of Cost-Saving Strategies in 1,755 Outpatient Clinic Visits.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2016
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Marion DanisDepartment of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Building 10, Rm. 1C118, Bethesda, MD, 20892-1156, USA, mdanis@nih.gov.
Roseanna Sommers
Jean Logan
Beverly Weidmer
Shirley Chen
Susan Goold
Steven Pearson
Greer Donley
Elizabeth McGlynn
National Institutes of Health Clinical Center · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USKaiser Permanente · USRAND Corporation · US

Funding

Discussing Costs in the Doctor-Patient EncounterZIACL010532 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI DANIS, MARION · 2010 to 2014
$0k
Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients' willingness to discuss costs of treatment alternatives with their physicians is uncertain.

objectiveTo explore public attitudes toward doctor-patient discussions of insurer and out-of-pocket costs and to examine whether several possible communication strategies might enhance patient receptivity to discussing costs with their physicians.

designFocus group discussions and pre-discussion and post-discussion questionnaires.

participantsTwo hundred and eleven insured individuals with mean age of 48 years, 51 % female, 34 % African American, 27 % Latino, and 50 % with incomes below 300 % of the federal poverty threshold, participated in 22 focus groups in Santa Monica, CA and in the Washington, DC metro area. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Attitudes toward discussing out-of-pocket and insurer costs with physicians, and towards physicians' role in controlling costs; receptivity toward recommended communication strategies regarding costs. KEY

resultsParticipants expressed more willingness to talk to doctors about personal costs than insurer costs. Older participants and sicker participants were more willing to talk to the doctor about all costs than younger and healthier participants (OR = 1.8, p = 0.004; OR = 1.6, p = 0.027 respectively). Participants who face cost-related barriers to accessing health care were in greater agreement than others that doctors should play a role in reducing out-of-pocket costs (OR = 2.4, p = 0.011). Participants did not endorse recommended communication strategies for discussing costs in the clinical encounter. In contrast, participants stated that trust in one's physician would enhance their willingness to discuss costs. Perceived impediments to discussing costs included rushed, impersonal visits, and clinicians who are insufficiently informed about costs.

conclusionsThis study suggests that trusting relationships may be more conducive than any particular discussion strategy to facilitating doctor-patient discussions of health care costs. Better public understanding of how medical decisions affect insurer costs and how such costs ultimately affect patients personally will be necessary if discussions about insurer costs are to occur in the clinical encounter.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthCommunicationHealth ExpendituresPhysician-Patient RelationsPublic OpinionAdultCommunication BarriersFees and ChargesFemaleFinancing, PersonalFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedSocioeconomic FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID23881272
PMCPMC3889963
OpenAlexW2083442325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.