Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Physician Discussions About the Benefits and Tradeoffs of Heart Failure Medications.

IF 8.2 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Henry D Biermann, Candace D Speight, Sarah C Montembeau, Andrea R Mitchell, Emily F Lowe, Advaita Krishnan, Laura D Scherer, Daniel D Matlock, Peter A Ubel, Larry A Allen, Neal W Dickert
{"title":"Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Physician Discussions About the Benefits and Tradeoffs of Heart Failure Medications.","authors":"Henry D Biermann, Candace D Speight, Sarah C Montembeau, Andrea R Mitchell, Emily F Lowe, Advaita Krishnan, Laura D Scherer, Daniel D Matlock, Peter A Ubel, Larry A Allen, Neal W Dickert","doi":"10.1016/j.cardfail.2025.07.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>How physicians frame medication benefits and tradeoffs while engaging in shared decision making with patients is not well described in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative, secondary analysis of recorded encounters between clinicians and patients with HFrEF sought to identify major themes regarding communication of medication benefits and tradeoffs. Encounters occurred in six clinics within two academic health systems. English-speaking adult patients with a diagnosis of HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) were enrolled.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 247 patient encounters were analyzed. Patients' mean (SD) age was 62.9 (13.9); 70.5% were male; 64.0% were White, 26.3% Black, and 3.2% Hispanic/Latinx. Overall, 70% of encounters contained a discussion involving medication benefits. Substantial variability was observed, and four main themes emerged. 1) Primary benefits (increased survival, reduced hospitalizations, better quality of life) were commonly discussed, but clinicians described the magnitude in only two cases; 2) Adjunctive drug benefits (improved physiology, tolerability, affordability) were described nonspecifically; 3) Persuasive forms of communication were common, including direct appeals to authority/guidelines, references to pharmaceutical advertisements, and emotive language; 4) Significant heterogeneity was present in the content and character of benefit tradeoff discussions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Rare inclusion of medication benefit magnitude, variability in the presentation of benefits, and use of persuasive and emotive communication all challenge traditional notions of shared decision-making but are commonly encountered in clinical interactions for heart failure. Recognizing these contextual factors and evaluating which are consistent with effective decision-making in HFrEF and other chronic conditions is important and needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":15204,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiac Failure","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiac Failure","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2025.07.025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: How physicians frame medication benefits and tradeoffs while engaging in shared decision making with patients is not well described in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods: This qualitative, secondary analysis of recorded encounters between clinicians and patients with HFrEF sought to identify major themes regarding communication of medication benefits and tradeoffs. Encounters occurred in six clinics within two academic health systems. English-speaking adult patients with a diagnosis of HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) were enrolled.

Results: A total of 247 patient encounters were analyzed. Patients' mean (SD) age was 62.9 (13.9); 70.5% were male; 64.0% were White, 26.3% Black, and 3.2% Hispanic/Latinx. Overall, 70% of encounters contained a discussion involving medication benefits. Substantial variability was observed, and four main themes emerged. 1) Primary benefits (increased survival, reduced hospitalizations, better quality of life) were commonly discussed, but clinicians described the magnitude in only two cases; 2) Adjunctive drug benefits (improved physiology, tolerability, affordability) were described nonspecifically; 3) Persuasive forms of communication were common, including direct appeals to authority/guidelines, references to pharmaceutical advertisements, and emotive language; 4) Significant heterogeneity was present in the content and character of benefit tradeoff discussions.

Conclusions: Rare inclusion of medication benefit magnitude, variability in the presentation of benefits, and use of persuasive and emotive communication all challenge traditional notions of shared decision-making but are commonly encountered in clinical interactions for heart failure. Recognizing these contextual factors and evaluating which are consistent with effective decision-making in HFrEF and other chronic conditions is important and needed.

关于心力衰竭药物利弊的医患讨论的定性分析。
背景:在治疗心力衰竭伴射血分数降低(HFrEF)的过程中,医生在与患者共同决策时如何制定药物治疗的益处和权衡并没有得到很好的描述。方法:对临床医生和HFrEF患者之间记录的会面进行定性、二次分析,旨在确定有关药物益处和权衡的沟通的主要主题。接触发生在两个学术卫生系统内的六个诊所。入选诊断为HFrEF(射血分数≤40%)的英语成人患者。结果:共分析了247例患者。患者平均(SD)年龄为62.9岁(13.9岁);70.5%为男性;64.0%为白人,26.3%为黑人,3.2%为西班牙裔/拉丁裔。总体而言,70%的会面包含了有关药物益处的讨论。观察到大量的变化,并出现了四个主要主题。1)主要益处(提高生存率,减少住院次数,提高生活质量)被普遍讨论,但临床医生只描述了两个病例的程度;2)辅助药物的益处(改善生理、耐受性、可负担性)被非特异性描述;3)说服性的沟通形式很常见,包括直接诉诸权威/指导方针、参考药品广告和情感语言;4)利益权衡讨论的内容和特征存在显著的异质性。结论:罕见的纳入药物益处程度、益处呈现的可变性、说服性和情感沟通的使用,这些都挑战了共同决策的传统观念,但在心力衰竭的临床相互作用中却经常遇到。认识到这些背景因素并评估与HFrEF和其他慢性疾病的有效决策一致的因素是重要和必要的。
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 Cardiac Failure
Journal of Cardiac Failure 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
653
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiac Failure publishes original, peer-reviewed communications of scientific excellence and review articles on clinical research, basic human studies, animal studies, and bench research with potential clinical applications to heart failure - pathogenesis, etiology, epidemiology, pathophysiological mechanisms, assessment, prevention, and treatment.
×
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