Factors Associated With Acceptance of an Optional Diagnosis.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Cortney Matthews, David Ring, Teun Teunis, Sina Ramtin
{"title":"Factors Associated With Acceptance of an Optional Diagnosis.","authors":"Cortney Matthews, David Ring, Teun Teunis, Sina Ramtin","doi":"10.1097/QMH.0000000000000476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A sensation becomes a symptom (a concern) when a person associates it with potential illness. In the absence of objective evidence of a pathophysiological process that has important health consequences without treatment, assigning a diagnosis to the sensation is optional. This is important because labeling of benign bodily sensations as pathophysiology has potential advantages and disadvantages.</p><p><strong>Question: </strong>We asked what patient and clinician factors are associated with willingness to accept an optional diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a survey administered using Amazon M-Turk, 536 people anonymously completed validated measures for symptoms of anxiety and depression, intolerance of uncertainty, and skepticism regarding the healthcare system. They then viewed fictional personal medical scenarios in which they were asked to imagine they experienced certain symptoms, and were offered an optional diagnosis of a nerve problem, muscle pain syndrome, or fatigue syndrome, and were asked to rate their willingness to accept the diagnosis on an 12-point ordinal scale from 0 indicating \"I do not accept it at all\" to 11 indicating \"I accept it with enthusiasm.\" The language of the scenarios was varied to attempt to reflect critical thinking, denigration of other doctors, an alternative mental health focus, or a hopeful outlook. Multilevel linear regression was used to identify factors associated with likelihood of accepting an optional diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Threshold likelihood of accepting an optional diagnosis greater than 5.5 on a 0 to 11 ordinal scale was independently associated with greater symptoms of anxiety (regression coefficient [RC] = 0.38, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.30-0.47, P < .001), greater skepticism regarding the healthcare system (RC = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.076-0.13, P < .001), and delivery tones characterized by either denigration of other doctors (RC = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.19-0.60, P < .001) or a hopeful outlook (RC = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.26-0.73, P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Likelihood of accepting an optional diagnosis may be a sign of relative vulnerability from feelings of distress or distrust of medical evidence. Given this potential vulnerability, clinicians can take care to limit persuasive communication styles that can influence acceptance of optional diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III prognostic.</p>","PeriodicalId":20986,"journal":{"name":"Quality Management in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality Management in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0000000000000476","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A sensation becomes a symptom (a concern) when a person associates it with potential illness. In the absence of objective evidence of a pathophysiological process that has important health consequences without treatment, assigning a diagnosis to the sensation is optional. This is important because labeling of benign bodily sensations as pathophysiology has potential advantages and disadvantages.

Question: We asked what patient and clinician factors are associated with willingness to accept an optional diagnosis.

Methods: In a survey administered using Amazon M-Turk, 536 people anonymously completed validated measures for symptoms of anxiety and depression, intolerance of uncertainty, and skepticism regarding the healthcare system. They then viewed fictional personal medical scenarios in which they were asked to imagine they experienced certain symptoms, and were offered an optional diagnosis of a nerve problem, muscle pain syndrome, or fatigue syndrome, and were asked to rate their willingness to accept the diagnosis on an 12-point ordinal scale from 0 indicating "I do not accept it at all" to 11 indicating "I accept it with enthusiasm." The language of the scenarios was varied to attempt to reflect critical thinking, denigration of other doctors, an alternative mental health focus, or a hopeful outlook. Multilevel linear regression was used to identify factors associated with likelihood of accepting an optional diagnosis.

Results: Threshold likelihood of accepting an optional diagnosis greater than 5.5 on a 0 to 11 ordinal scale was independently associated with greater symptoms of anxiety (regression coefficient [RC] = 0.38, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.30-0.47, P < .001), greater skepticism regarding the healthcare system (RC = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.076-0.13, P < .001), and delivery tones characterized by either denigration of other doctors (RC = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.19-0.60, P < .001) or a hopeful outlook (RC = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.26-0.73, P < .001).

Conclusion: Likelihood of accepting an optional diagnosis may be a sign of relative vulnerability from feelings of distress or distrust of medical evidence. Given this potential vulnerability, clinicians can take care to limit persuasive communication styles that can influence acceptance of optional diagnoses.

Level of evidence: III prognostic.

接受可选诊断的相关因素。
背景:当一个人把一种感觉与潜在的疾病联系起来时,这种感觉就会成为一种症状(一种担忧)。在没有客观证据证明病理生理过程会对健康造成重大影响而不进行治疗的情况下,可以选择对感觉进行诊断。这一点很重要,因为将良性的身体感觉标注为病理生理学可能有利有弊:我们询问了患者和临床医生愿意接受选择性诊断的相关因素:在一项使用亚马逊 M-Turk 进行的调查中,536 人匿名完成了关于焦虑和抑郁症状、对不确定性的不容忍以及对医疗系统的怀疑的有效测量。然后,他们观看了虚构的个人医疗情景,在这些情景中,他们被要求想象自己出现了某些症状,并被提供了神经问题、肌肉疼痛综合症或疲劳综合症的可选诊断,他们还被要求用 12 点顺序量表来评价自己是否愿意接受诊断,0 表示 "我完全不接受",11 表示 "我热情地接受"。情景的语言多种多样,试图反映批判性思维、对其他医生的诋毁、另类心理健康关注点或充满希望的前景。多层次线性回归用于确定与接受可选诊断可能性相关的因素:结果:在 0 到 11 的序数量表中,接受可选诊断的阈值大于 5.5 的可能性与焦虑症状较重独立相关(回归系数 [RC] = 0.38,95% 置信区间 [95% CI] = 0.30-0.47,P 结论:接受可选诊断的阈值大于 5.5 与焦虑症状较重独立相关:接受可选诊断的可能性可能是相对易受痛苦或不信任医学证据的影响的一种迹象。鉴于这种潜在的脆弱性,临床医生可以注意限制可能影响接受选择性诊断的说服性沟通方式:III 预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Quality Management in Health Care
Quality Management in Health Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
108
期刊介绍: Quality Management in Health Care (QMHC) is a peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for our readers to explore the theoretical, technical, and strategic elements of health care quality management. The journal''s primary focus is on organizational structure and processes as these affect the quality of care and patient outcomes. In particular, it: -Builds knowledge about the application of statistical tools, control charts, benchmarking, and other devices used in the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of care and of patient outcomes; -Encourages research in and evaluation of the results of various organizational strategies designed to bring about quantifiable improvements in patient outcomes; -Fosters the application of quality management science to patient care processes and clinical decision-making; -Fosters cooperation and communication among health care providers, payers and regulators in their efforts to improve the quality of patient outcomes; -Explores links among the various clinical, technical, administrative, and managerial disciplines involved in patient care, as well as the role and responsibilities of organizational governance in ongoing quality management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信