Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29221461›Full record

ArticleIsrael journal of health policy research2017

Seeking a second medical opinion: composition, reasons and perceived outcomes in Israel.

Liora Shmueli, Nadav Davidovitch, Joseph S Pliskin, Ran D Balicer, Igal Hekselman, Geva Greenfield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Israel journal of health policy research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Second opinion in spine surgery: A scoping review.Surgical neurology international · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Second Opinions in Psychiatry: A Review.Journal of psychiatric practice · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Liora ShmueliDepartment of Health Systems Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 653, 84105, Beer-Sheva, Israel. liora.jana@gmail.com.
Nadav DavidovitchDepartment of Health Systems Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 653, 84105, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Joseph S PliskinDepartment of Health Systems Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 653, 84105, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Ran D BalicerClalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, 101 Arlozorov, 62098, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Igal HekselmanClalit Mushlam Health Insurance Systems, Clalit Health Services, 1 Ben Gurion, 5120149, Bnei Brak, Israel.
Geva GreenfieldDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, The Reynolds Building, St. Dunstan's Road, London, W6 8RP, UK.

Funding

Department of HealthIsrael National Institute for Health Policy Research (IL) R/10/144
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeeking a second-opinion (SO) is a common clinical practice that can optimize treatment and reduce unnecessary procedures and risks. We aim to characterize the composition of the population of SO seekers, their reasons for seeking a SO and choosing a specific physician, and their perceived outcomes following the SO.

methodsA cross-sectional national telephone survey, using a representative sample of the general Israeli population (n = 848, response rate = 62%). SO utilization was defined as seeking an additional clinical opinion from a specialist within the same specialty, for the same medical concern. We describe the characteristics of respondents who obtained SOs, their reasons for doing so and their perceived outcomes: (1) Satisfaction with the SO; (2) Experiencing health improvement after receiving a SO; (3) A difference in the diagnosis or treatment suggested in the first opinions and the second opinions; (4) Preference of the SO over the first one.

resultsMost of the respondents who sought a SO (n = 344) were above 60 years old, secular, living with a partner, perceived their income to be above average and their health status to be not so good. For the patients who utilized SOs, orthopedic surgeons were sought out more than any other medical professional.Reasons for seeking a SO included doubts about diagnosis or treatment (38%), search for a sub-specialty expert (19%) and dissatisfaction with communication (19%). SO seekers most frequently chose a specific specialist based on a recommendation from a friend or a relative (33%). About half of the SO seekers also searched for information on the internet. Most of the respondents who sought a SO mentioned that they were satisfied with it (84%), felt health improvement (77%), mentioned that there was a difference between the diagnosis or treatment between the first opinion and the SO (56%) and preferred the SO over the first one (91%).

conclusionsClinical uncertainty or dissatisfaction with patient-physician communication were the main reasons for seeking a SO. Policy makers should be aware that many patients choose a physician for a SO based on recommendations made outside the medical system. We recommend creating mechanisms that help patients in the complicated process of seeking a SO, suggest specialists who are suitable for the specific medical problem of the patient, and provide tools to reconcile discrepant opinions.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionPerceptionAdolescentAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicIsraelMaleMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchReferral and ConsultationSurveys and QuestionnairesHealth policyHealth seeking behaviorsPatient-physician communicationSecond opinionSurvey

Identifiers

PMID29221461
PMCPMC5721599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.