Tilburt, Jon C.

Objective To assess US physicians’ attitudes towards using shared decision-making (SDM) to achieve cost containment. Design Cross-sectional mailed survey. Setting US medical practice. Participants 3897 physicians were randomly selected from the AMA Physician Masterfile. Of these, 2556 completed the survey. Main outcome measures Level of enthusiasm for “Promoting better conversations with patients as a means of lowering healthcare costs”; degree of agreement with “Decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in my practice” and agreement with “should promoting SDM be legislated to control overall healthcare costs”. Results Of 2556 respondents (response rate (RR) 65%), two-thirds (67%) were ‘very enthusiastic’ about promoting SDM as a means of reducing healthcare costs. Most (70%) agreed decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in their practice, but only 24% agreed with legislating SDM to control costs. Compared with physicians with billing-only compensation, respondents with salary compensation were more likely to strongly agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7). Primary care physicians (vs surgeons, OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.6) expressed more enthusiasm for SDM being legislated as a means to address healthcare costs. Conclusions Most US physicians express enthusiasm about using SDM to help contain costs. They believe decision support tools that show costs would be useful. Few agree that SDM should be legislated as a means to control healthcare costs.

Background: Recent literature suggests that one in nine children in the United States uses some type of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Children with challenging neurological conditions such as headache, migraine, and seizures may seek CAM in their attempts at self-care. Our objective was to describe CAM use in children with these conditions. Methods: We compared use of CAM among children aged 3 to 17 years with and without common neurological conditions (headaches, migraines, seizures) where CAM might plausibly play a role in their self-management using the 2007 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data. Results : Children with common neurological conditions reported significantly more CAM use compared to the children without these conditions (24.0% vs 12.6%, P< .0001). Compared to other pediatric CAM users, children with neurological conditions report similarly high use of biological therapies and significantly higher use of mind-body techniques (38.6% vs 20.5%, P<.007). Of the mind-body techniques, deep breathing (32.5%), meditation (15.1%), and progressive relaxation (10.1%) were used most frequently. Conclusions: About one in four children with common neurological conditions use CAM. The nature of CAM use in this population, as well as its risks and benefits in neurological disease, deserve further investigation.

AbstractBackgroundVarious components of the skin biopsy requisition form (SBRF) may contribute to accurate dermatopathologic interpretation.MethodsA search of electronic databases, including those of Ovid MEDLINE In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus, was conducted from inception to October 2011. Two authors independently screened all articles for eligibility. Inclusion criteria required material to represent original studies on skin biopsy and pathology requisition forms. Data abstracted from each article that met the inclusion criteria included details of the study characteristics, including the study location, type of pathology practice, specimen type, type of dermatoses, medical specialty of the requesting provider, suggested clinical components, and format of the SBRF.ResultsOf 32 titles and abstracts reviewed, seven articles were included. From these, we determined that dermatologists, general practitioners and surgeons completed SBRFs. Commonly included components were patient demographics and requesting clinician characteristics. Clinical information and differential diagnosis were provided in 4% (two of 48 surgeons) to 36% (18 of 50 dermatologists) of requisitions. Most SBRFs did not include information on specimen type, clinical morphology, photographs or clinical history.ConclusionsThe limited medical literature demonstrates variation in the content of SBRFs across clinicians and practices, and suggests an important target for improvement in the quality of communication and dermatologic care by requesting clinicians and pathologists.

BACKGROUNDTwo randomized trials have demonstrated improved progression‐free survival (PFS) with lenalidomide maintenance after autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma (MM). Overall survival (OS) results are conflicting, and quality‐of‐life (QOL) data are lacking. The authors conducted a systematic survey of patients with MM regarding what constitutes a meaningful benefit that would make burdens of maintenance treatments (toxicity and cost) acceptable.METHODSA self‐administered survey was mailed to 1159 consecutive, living patients who were evaluated at Mayo Clinic. The survey provided background information on the standard of care for MM and data on maintenance. Patients were asked to estimate the magnitude of OS benefit that would be acceptable for various degrees of toxicity and cost.RESULTSOf 1159 surveys sent, 886 patients (83.2%) responded, and 736 patients returned a completed survey (66% raw response rate). The most worrisome potential toxicity was identified as peripheral neuropathy by 27% of patients, cytopenias by 24%, deep vein thrombosis by 20%, fatigue by 15%, nausea by 8%, and diarrhea/constipation by 7%. If treatment was free, had no toxicity, and the OS benefit was ≤1 year, then 49% of patients indicated that they would choose maintenance; with moderate toxicity, this proportion decreased to 42%. Adding a treatment cost of $25 per month decreased the proportion that would choose maintenance to 39% of patients.CONCLUSIONSThe current results indicated that willingness to receive maintenance treatment declined when actual benefits were provided in concrete numeric terms compared with a general statement of PFS benefit. The authors also observed that the magnitude of benefit required to consider maintenance was affected by cost and toxicity. Cancer 2013;119:4308–4315. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Objective To assess recommendations for prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA ) screening in a national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists following the recent USA P reventive S ervices T ask F orce ( USPSTF ) grade D recommendation. Methods A random sample of 1366 radiation oncologists and urologists were identified from the A merican M edical A ssociation P hysician M asterfile. From N ovember 2011 to A pril 2012, a mail survey was sent to query PSA screening recommendations for men at average risk of prostate cancer for the following age groups: 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–74, 75–79 and ≥80 years. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test for differences in PSA ‐based screening recommendations by physician characteristics. Results Response rates were similar at 52% for radiation oncologists and urologists ( P = 0.92). Overall, 51.5% of respondents recommended PSA ‐based screening for men aged 40–49 years, while nearly all endorsed it for those aged 50–74 years (96.1% for 50–59, 97.3% for 60–69, and 87.7% for 70–74 years). However, screening recommendations decreased to 43.9% and 12.8% for men aged 75–79 and ≥80 years, respectively. On multivariable analysis, urologists were more likely to recommend screening for men aged 40–49 (odds ratio [ OR ] 3.09; P < 0.001) and 50–59 years ( OR 3.81; P = 0.01), but less likely for men aged 75–79 ( OR 0.66; P = 0.01) and ≥80 years ( OR 0.45; P = 0.002) compared with radiation oncologists. Conclusion While radiation oncologists and urologists recommended PSA screening for men aged 50–69 years, there was less agreement about screening for younger (40–49 years old) and older (≥70 years) men at average risk for prostate cancer.

Background. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and integrative medicine (IM) modalities are widely used by patients, including those with infectious diseases (ID).Methods. One thousand randomly selected ID practitioners were surveyed. The survey was divided into domains related to familiarity and recommendation, beliefs and attitudes, and use of CAM/IM modalities.Results. The response rate was 31%. ID physicians were most familiar with vitamin and mineral supplementation (83%), massage (80%), acupuncture (79%), chiropractic (77%), yoga (74%), and herbal medicine (72%). ID physicians most recommended vitamin and mineral supplementation (80%) and massage (62%). Yoga, meditation, and acupuncture were recommended by 52%, 45%, and 46%, respectively. Drug interactions, clinical research, and knowledge of CAM/IM modalities were factors that were considered a major influence. Almost 80% of respondents indicated an interest in IM versus 11% for CAM. Most respondents (75%) felt that IM modalities are useful, and more than 50% believed that they could directly affect the immune system or disease process.Conclusion. ID physicians expressed a markedly greater interest for IM versus CAM. They appear to be familiar and willing to recommend some CAM/IM modalities and see a role for these in the management of certain infectious diseases. Data regarding clinical efficacy and safety appear to be important factors.

Abstract Background Although many probiotic products are currently available in yogurt or pill form in the United States ( US ), there is uncertainty surrounding the structure of regulation of these products. As more therapeutic probiotics are developed, changes to existing regulatory process in the United States may be required to meet the needs of patients and users in the population. Objective This study examined how patients with chronic gastrointestinal ( GI ) diseases view the regulation of probiotics. Design We conducted a multi‐site qualitative study consisting of focus groups of patients with chronic gastrointestinal diseases at three tertiary hospitals: at [institutions removed for blinded review]. Results We conducted 22 focus groups with 136 patients with major gastrointestinal ( GI ) diseases between March and August 2009. Participants were not familiar with the existing regulation of probiotic products but wanted assurances of accurate labelling of strain as well as safety. Participants raised concerns that regulation of probiotics might be accompanied by greater costs, reduced access and increased involvement of pharmaceutical companies. Although participants voiced significant doubt of government regulators, they felt that products containing genetically modified probiotic strains should have oversight comparable to that of pharmaceutical drugs. Discussion and conclusion If GI patient perspectives are indicative of public perceptions of therapeutic probiotics in the United States, consumers may expect more rigorous regulation in the future while simultaneously wanting low costs, easy access and low involvement of pharmaceutical companies. Manufacturers, translational scientists, clinicians and regulators should be sensitive to consumer attitudes when designing, testing and regulating new therapeutic probiotics.