Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2014
Directive counsel and morally controversial medical decision-making: findings from two national surveys of primary care physicians.
Trial report 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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The NERSH Questionnaire and Pool of Data from 12 Countries: Development and Description.Journal of religion and health · 2022Article
- Capsule commentary on Putman et al., directive counsel and morally controversial medical decision-making: findings from two national surveys of primary care physicians.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBecause of the potential to unduly influence patients' decisions, some ethicists counsel physicians to be nondirective when negotiating morally controversial medical decisions.
objectiveTo determine whether primary care providers (PCPs) are less likely to endorse directive counsel for morally controversial medical decisions than for typical ones and to identify predictors of endorsing directive counsel in such situations. DESIGN AND
participantsSurveys were mailed to two separate national samples of practicing primary care physicians. Survey 1 was conducted from 2009 to 2010 on 1,504 PCPs; Survey 2 was conducted from 2010 to 2011 on 1,058 PCPs. MAIN MEASURES: Survey 1: After randomization, half of the PCPs were asked if physicians should encourage patients to make the decision that the physician believes is best (directive counsel) with respect to "typical" medical decisions and half were asked the same question with respect to "morally controversial" medical decisions. Survey 2: After reading a vignette in which a patient asked for palliative sedation to unconsciousness, PCPs were asked whether it would be appropriate for the patient's physician to encourage the patient to make the decision the physician believes is best. KEY
resultsOf 1,427 eligible physicians, 896 responded to Survey 1 (63 %). Physicians asked about morally controversial decisions were half as likely (35 % vs. 65 % for typical decisions, p < 0.001) to endorse directive counsel. Of 986 eligible physicians, 600 responded to Survey 2 (61 %). Two in five physicians (41 %) endorsed directive counsel after reading a vignette describing a patient requesting palliative sedation to unconsciousness; these physicians tended to be male and more religious.
conclusionsPCPs are less likely to endorse directive counsel when negotiating morally controversial medical decisions. Male physicians and those who are more religious are more likely to endorse directive counsel in these situations.
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.