Shared decision-making in severe asthma therapy: qualitative study of physician-patient communication.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 ALLERGY
Journal of Asthma Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-18 DOI:10.1080/02770903.2025.2488000
Ember Lu, Zachary Hebert, Katya Solovyeva, Lisa Kietzer, Zeina Eid Antoun, Rafael Alfonso-Cristancho
{"title":"Shared decision-making in severe asthma therapy: qualitative study of physician-patient communication.","authors":"Ember Lu, Zachary Hebert, Katya Solovyeva, Lisa Kietzer, Zeina Eid Antoun, Rafael Alfonso-Cristancho","doi":"10.1080/02770903.2025.2488000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Biologics are indicated for severe asthma, but little is known about the factors driving patient and physician decisions surrounding their use.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To understand decision drivers for biologic use and conversational dynamics between patients with severe asthma and physicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective database study used anonymized physician-patient conversations (recorded September 2018-August 2020) from routine clinical visits, captured in Verilogue's physician-patient syndicated database. Eligible conversations included those of patients with severe asthma, who were considering biologic therapy (Topic 1), had initiated biologic within 7 months of clinical visit (Topic 2), or were discontinuing/considering switching biologic treatment (Topic 3). Conversations were analyzed quantitatively and descriptively by topic.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 50 conversations between 14 physicians and 50 patients were included (considering biologic, <i>n</i> = 10; recent biologic initiation, <i>n</i> = 20; switched/discontinued biologic, <i>n</i> = 20). Physicians had 68-73% share of the conversation. When considering biologic treatment, the presence of symptoms (including coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness) drove the decision, with 3/10 patients providing additional symptom impact/severity details, and 2/10 describing adjustments to accommodate symptoms. Physicians set unspecified treatment goals and modest expectations for biologic efficacy, framing any symptom control as success (13/20 conversations). Patient symptom assessment drove the decision to continue, discontinue, or switch biologic treatment: in 5/20 cases, physicians asked patients if they were \"better\" or the medication is \"helping.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that patients relied on physicians to shape patient-physician interactions and treatment expectations. This suggests that shared decision-making may improve physicians' understanding of the impact severe asthma has on patients and facilitate the setting of treatment expectations.</p>","PeriodicalId":15076,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Asthma","volume":" ","pages":"1439-1449"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Asthma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2025.2488000","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: Biologics are indicated for severe asthma, but little is known about the factors driving patient and physician decisions surrounding their use.

Objectives: To understand decision drivers for biologic use and conversational dynamics between patients with severe asthma and physicians.

Methods: This retrospective database study used anonymized physician-patient conversations (recorded September 2018-August 2020) from routine clinical visits, captured in Verilogue's physician-patient syndicated database. Eligible conversations included those of patients with severe asthma, who were considering biologic therapy (Topic 1), had initiated biologic within 7 months of clinical visit (Topic 2), or were discontinuing/considering switching biologic treatment (Topic 3). Conversations were analyzed quantitatively and descriptively by topic.

Results: Overall, 50 conversations between 14 physicians and 50 patients were included (considering biologic, n = 10; recent biologic initiation, n = 20; switched/discontinued biologic, n = 20). Physicians had 68-73% share of the conversation. When considering biologic treatment, the presence of symptoms (including coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness) drove the decision, with 3/10 patients providing additional symptom impact/severity details, and 2/10 describing adjustments to accommodate symptoms. Physicians set unspecified treatment goals and modest expectations for biologic efficacy, framing any symptom control as success (13/20 conversations). Patient symptom assessment drove the decision to continue, discontinue, or switch biologic treatment: in 5/20 cases, physicians asked patients if they were "better" or the medication is "helping."

Conclusions: This study suggests that patients relied on physicians to shape patient-physician interactions and treatment expectations. This suggests that shared decision-making may improve physicians' understanding of the impact severe asthma has on patients and facilitate the setting of treatment expectations.

重症哮喘治疗中的共同决策:医患沟通的定性研究。
理由:生物制剂适用于严重哮喘,但对促使患者和医生决定使用生物制剂的因素知之甚少。目的:了解重度哮喘患者使用生物制剂的决策驱动因素以及患者与医生之间的对话动态。方法:这项回顾性数据库研究使用了匿名的医患对话(记录于2018年9月至2020年8月),这些对话来自Verilogue的医患联合数据库。符合条件的对话包括严重哮喘患者,正在考虑生物治疗(主题1),在临床访问的7个月内开始生物治疗(主题2),或正在停止/考虑转换生物治疗(主题3)。根据话题对对话进行定量和描述性的分析。结果:总体而言,包括14名医生和50名患者之间的50次对话(考虑生物学,n = 10;近期生物起始,n = 20;切换/停用生物制剂,n = 20)。医生在谈话中占68% -73%的份额。在考虑生物治疗时,症状(包括咳嗽、喘息、呼吸短促和胸闷)的存在是决定因素,3/10的患者提供了额外的症状影响/严重程度细节,2/10的患者描述了适应症状的调整。医生设定了未明确的治疗目标和对生物疗效的适度期望,将任何症状控制都视为成功(13/20对话)。患者症状评估决定继续、停止或切换生物治疗:在5/20的病例中,医生询问患者是否“好转”或药物是否“有帮助”。结论:本研究提示患者依赖医生来塑造医患互动和治疗期望。这表明,共同决策可以提高医生对严重哮喘对患者影响的理解,并促进治疗预期的设定。
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
Journal of Asthma
Journal of Asthma 医学-过敏
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
158
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Providing an authoritative open forum on asthma and related conditions, Journal of Asthma publishes clinical research around such topics as asthma management, critical and long-term care, preventative measures, environmental counselling, and patient education.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信