Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31056808›Full record

ArticleHaemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia2019

UK vs US physician decision-making in the treatment of haemophilia.

Christopher C Lamb, Adrian Wolfberg, Kalle Lyytinen

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. UK vs US physician decision-making in the treatment of haemophilia.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher C LambWeatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3398-6382
Adrian WolfbergWeatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Kalle LyytinenWeatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Case Western Reserve University · US

Funding

BioSolutions Services LLC
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatient-physician shared decision-making (SDM) has become increasingly seen as having a positive effect on management of chronic diseases. However, little is known of the factors that encourage SDM or how effective it may be at improving health outcomes or how cost-effective it is.

aimTo investigate the uses and applications of patient physician-SDM in the management of haemophilia and the influence of healthcare systems in the United States and the United Kingdom.

methodsThis was a qualitative study based on interviews with treatment experts in the United States and United Kingdom. A grounded theory approach was used to analyse the data from the transcribed interviews and themes that emerged as related to the decision influencers. Twelve physicians from each country were interviewed by the author.

resultsTreatment guidelines were viewed as having only limited applicability because of the lack of universal best options in haemophilia. The US physicians in the sample appeared to be more influenced by patient preferences than physicians in the UK, who instead tended to follow policies and standards of care more closely. Physicians in both countries commented that many of their patents had become highly knowledgeable of their bleeding disorder. US physicians were sometimes limited by insurance company policies but also reported that they were often successful in appealing insurance decisions.

conclusionThe research suggests that there are different influences on decision-making between healthcare systems; patients and overarching healthcare systems play a major role in how physicians treat haemophilia.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingAdultChildEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHematologyHemophilia AHumansMalePhysiciansUnited KingdomUnited Statesdecision-makinghaemophiliaphysician decision processUS HCS vs UK HCS

Identifiers

PMID31056808
PMCPMC6850192
OpenAlexW2944745078

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.