Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Fachpsychotherapie Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende Patientenratgeber
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Erschienen in:

02.02.2021 | Original Research

Shared Clinical Decision-Making Recommendations for Adult Immunization: What Do Physicians Think?

verfasst von: Allison Kempe, MD, MPH, Megan C. Lindley, MPH, Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, Lori A. Crane, PhD, MPH, Jessica R. Cataldi, MD, MSCS, Michaela Brtnikova, PhD, MPH, Brenda L. Beaty, MSPH, Daniel D. Matlock, MD, MPH, Carol Gorman, BA, Laura P. Hurley, MD, MPH

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 8/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

In 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) incorporated the terminology “shared clinical decision-making” (SDM) into recommendations for two adult vaccines.

Objective

To assess among general internal medicine physicians (GIMs) and family physicians (FPs) nationally (1) attitudes about and experience with ACIP SDM recommendations, (2) knowledge of insurance reimbursement for vaccines with SDM recommendations, (3) how SDM recommendations are incorporated into vaccine forecasting software, and (4) physician and practice characteristics associated with not knowing how to implement SDM.

Design

Survey conducted in October 2019–January 2020 by mail or internet based on preference.

Participants

Networks of GIMs and FPs recruited from American College of Physicians (ACP) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) who practice ≥ 50% in primary care. Post-stratification quota sampling performed to ensure networks similar to ACP and AAFP memberships.

Main Measures

Responses on 4-point Likert scales (attitudes/experiences), true/false options (knowledge), and categorical response options (forecasting). Multivariable modeling with outcome of “not knowing how to implement SDM” conducted.

Key Results

Response rate was 64% (617/968). Most physicians strongly/somewhat agreed SDM requires more time than routine recommendations (90%FP; 95%GIM, p = 0.02) and that they need specific talking points to guide SDM discussions (79%FP; 84%GIM, p = NS). There was both support for SDM recommendations for certain vaccines (81%FP; 75%GIM, p = 0.06) and agreement that SDM creates confusion (64%FP; 76%GIM, p = 0.001). Only 41%FP and 43%GIM knew vaccines recommended for SDM would be covered by most health insurance. Overall, 38% reported SDM recommendations are displayed as “recommended” and 23% that they did not result in any recommendation in forecasting software. In adjusted multivariable models, GIMs [risk ratio 1.44 (1.15–1.81)] and females [1.28 (1.02–1.60)] were significantly associated with not knowing how to implement SDM recommendations

Conclusions

To be successful in a primary care setting, SDM for adult vaccination will require thoughtful implementation with decision-making support for patients and physicians.
Literatur
1.
Walton LR, Orenstein WA, Pickering LK. The history of the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Vaccine. 2015;33(3):405-414.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Hurley LP, Allison MA, Pilishvili T, et al. Primary Care Physicians’ Struggle with Current Adult Pneumococcal Vaccine Recommendations. J Am Board Fam Med 2018;31(1):94-104.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Hurley LP, Lindley MC, Allison MA, et al. Primary care physicians’ perspective on financial issues and adult immunization in the Era of the Affordable Care Act. Vaccine. 2017;35(4):647-654.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Hurley LP, Allison MA, Dooling KL, et al. Primary care physicians’ experience with zoster vaccine live (ZVL) and awareness and attitudes regarding the new recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV). Vaccine. 2018;36(48):7408-7414.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Hurley LP, Lindley MC, Harpaz R, et al. Barriers to the Use of Herpes Zoster Vaccine. Ann Intern Med 2010;152(9):555-560.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Gravel K, Légaré F, Graham ID. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Implement Sci 2006;1:16-16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Crane LA, Daley MF, Barrow J, et al. Sentinel physician networks as a technique for rapid immunization policy surveys. Eval Health Prof 2008;31(1):43-64.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Brtnikova M, Crane LA, Allison MA, Hurley LP, Beaty BL, Kempe A. A method for achieving high response rates in national surveys of U.S. primary care physicians. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0202755.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Don A. Dillman JDS, Leah Melani Christian. Internet, Phone, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Desgin Method. Vol 4th. 4th. Hoboken: Wiley 2014.
17.
McMahon SR, Iwamoto M, Massoudi MS, et al. Comparison of e-mail, fax, and postal surveys of pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2003;111(4 Pt 1):e299-303.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Atkeson LR, Adams AN, Bryant LA, Zilberman L, Saunders KL. Considering Mixed Mode Surveys for Questions in Political Behavior: Using the Internet and Mail to Get Quality Data at Reasonable Costs. Polit Behav 2011;33(1):161-178.CrossRef
19.
20.
Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared Decision Making — The Pinnacle of Patient-Centered Care. N Engl J Med 2012;366(9):780-781.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Merchant FM, Dickert NW, Jr., Howard DH. Mandatory Shared Decision Making by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for Cardiovascular Procedures and Other Tests. Jama. 2018;320(7):641-642.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Knoepke CE, Allen LA, Kramer DB, Matlock DD. Medicare Mandates for Shared Decision Making in Cardiovascular Device Placement. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcome 2019;12(7):e004899.CrossRef
23.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Decision Memo for Screening for Lung Cancer with Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) (CAG-00439N). 2015.
24.
Beach MC, Sugarman J. Realizing Shared Decision-making in Practice. Jama. 2019;322(9):811-812.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(1):Cd001431.PubMed
26.
Couët N, Desroches S, Robitaille H, et al. Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expect 2015;18(4):542-561.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Braaf S, Rixon S, Williams A, Lieu D, Manias E. Pharmacist-patient medication communication during admission and discharge in specialty hospital settings: implications for person centered healthcare. 2015;4(2):16.
28.
Pieterse AH, Stiggelbout AM, Montori VM. Shared Decision Making and the Importance of Time. Jama. 2019;322(1):25-26.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Braddock III CH, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed Decision Making in Outpatient PracticeTime to Get Back to Basics. Jama. 1999;282(24):2313-2320.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A Typology of Shared Decision Making, Informed Consent, and Simple Consent. Ann Intern Med 2004;140(1):54-59.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Wennberg JE, O'Connor AM, Collins ED, Weinstein JN. Extending the P4P agenda, part 1: how Medicare can improve patient decision making and reduce unnecessary care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26(6):1564-1574.CrossRef
32.
Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Knowledge is not power for patients: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns 2014;94(3):291-309.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Légaré F, Adekpedjou R, Stacey D, et al. Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;7(7):CD006732-CD006732.PubMed
34.
Rao A, Shi Z, Ray KN, Mehrotra A, Ganguli I. National Trends in Primary Care Visit Use and Practice Capabilities, 2008-2015. Ann Family Med 2019;17(6):538-544.CrossRef
35.
Abbo ED, Zhang Q, Zelder M, Huang ES. The increasing number of clinical items addressed during the time of adult primary care visits. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23(12):2058-2065.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
Bridges CB, Hurley LP, Williams WW, Ramakrishnan A, Dean AK, Groom AV. Meeting the Challenges of Immunizing Adults. Vaccine. 2015;33:D114-D120.PubMedCrossRef
37.
38.
Hurley L, Lindley, MC, Allison, MA, et al. Room for Improvement: Primary Care Physicians’ Use of Evidence-Based Strategies to Increase Adult Vaccination Uptake. In. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2020.
39.
Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Manns BJ, et al. Comparison of the Complexity of Patients Seen by Different Medical Subspecialists in a Universal Health Care System. JAMA Netw Open 2018;1(7):e184852-e184852.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Kempe A, Hurley LP, Cardemil CV, et al. Use of Immunization Information Systems in Primary Care. Am J Prev Med 2017;52(2):173-182.PubMedCrossRef
41.
42.
Kim C, McEwen LN, Gerzoff RB, et al. Is Physician Gender Associated With the Quality of Diabetes Care? Diabetes Care 2005;28(7):1594-1598.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Berthold HK, Gouni-Berthold I, Bestehorn KP, Böhm M, Krone W. Physician gender is associated with the quality of type 2 diabetes care. J Intern Med 2008;264(4):340-350.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Baumhäkel M, Müller U, Böhm M. Influence of gender of physicians and patients on guideline-recommended treatment of chronic heart failure in a cross-sectional study. Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11(3):299-303.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
Andersen MR, Urban N. Physician gender and screening: do patient differences account for differences in mammography use? Women Health 1997;26(1):29-39.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Frank E, Dresner Y, Shani M, Vinker S. The association between physicians’ and patients’ preventive health practices. CMAJ. 2013;185(8):649-653.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Frank E, Harvey LK. Prevention advice rates of women and men physicians. Arch Fam Med 1996;5(4):215-219.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Franks P, Bertakis KD. Physician gender, patient gender, and primary care. J Women’s Health (2002). 2003;12(1):73-80.CrossRef
49.
Franks P, Clancy CM. Physician gender bias in clinical decisionmaking: screening for cancer in primary care. Med Care 1993;31(3):213-218.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Kruger J, Shaw L, Kahende J, Frank E. Health care providers’ advice to quit smoking, National Health Interview Survey, 2000, 2005, and 2010. Prev Chronic Dis 2012;9:E130.PubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Lurie N, Slater J, McGovern P, Ekstrum J, Quam L, Margolis K. Preventive care for women. Does the sex of the physician matter? N Engl J Med 1993;329(7):478-482.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Smith AW, Borowski LA, Liu B, et al. U.S. primary care physicians’ diet-, physical activity-, and weight-related care of adult patients. Am J Prev Med 2011;41(1):33-42.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
O'Leary ST, Riley LE, Lindley MC, et al. Immunization Practices of U.S. Obstetrician/Gynecologists for Pregnant Patients. Am J Prev Med 2018;54(2):205-213.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Shared Clinical Decision-Making Recommendations for Adult Immunization: What Do Physicians Think?
verfasst von
Allison Kempe, MD, MPH
Megan C. Lindley, MPH
Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH
Lori A. Crane, PhD, MPH
Jessica R. Cataldi, MD, MSCS
Michaela Brtnikova, PhD, MPH
Brenda L. Beaty, MSPH
Daniel D. Matlock, MD, MPH
Carol Gorman, BA
Laura P. Hurley, MD, MPH
Publikationsdatum
02.02.2021
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 8/2021
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06456-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2021

Care Coordination Strategies and Barriers during Medication Safety Incidents: a Qualitative, Cognitive Task Analysis

  • Original Research

The ACLGIM LEAD Program: a Leadership Program for Junior-Mid-Career Faculty

  • Open Access
  • Innovations in Medical Education

The Role of Gender in Careers in Medicine: a Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Literature

  • Review

Changes in Mortality in Top 10 Causes of Death from 2011 to 2018

  • Concise Research Report

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ultra-Long-Acting, Long-Acting, Intermediate-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

  • Review Paper

Effects of Including Epidemiologic Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports on Prescribing Non-Opioid Medications for Pain

  • Original Research

Kompaktes Leitlinien-Wissen Innere Medizin (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

Mit medbee Pocketcards schnell und sicher entscheiden.
Leitlinien-Wissen kostenlos und immer griffbereit auf ihrem Desktop, Handy oder Tablet.

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Therapiestopp bei älteren MS-Kranken kann sich lohnen

Eine Analyse aus Kanada bestätigt: Setzen ältere MS-Kranke die Behandlung mit Basistherapeutika ab, müssen sie kaum mit neuen Schüben und MRT-Auffälligkeiten rechnen.

Dank Nasenspray seltener in die Notaufnahme

Durch die intranasale Applikation von Etripamil lassen sich paroxysmale supraventrikuläre Tachykardien (PSVT) oft in Eigenregie beenden. Das erspart den Betroffenen das Aufsuchen von Notfallambulanzen.

Vorhofflimmern: So häufig kommt es bei Katheterablation zu Embolien

Arterielle Embolien – insbesondere Hirnembolien - sind eine mögliche periprozedurale Komplikation bei Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern. Wie hoch ist das Risiko? Eine Analyse von weltweit mehr als 300.000 Ablationsprozeduren gibt darüber Auskunft.

NSCLC: Hirnmetastasen durch elektrische Felder eindämmen

Zur Behandlung von Hirnmetasen bei nicht-kleinzelligem Lungenkrebs (NSCLC) stehen verschiedene Optionen zur Verfügung. TTFields – eine lokoregionäre, nicht-invasive physikalische Therapie – könnte sich hier einreihen.

EKG Essentials: EKG befunden mit System (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

In diesem CME-Kurs können Sie Ihr Wissen zur EKG-Befundung anhand von zwölf Video-Tutorials auffrischen und 10 CME-Punkte sammeln.
Praxisnah, relevant und mit vielen Tipps & Tricks vom Profi.

Jetzt 10 CME-Punkte sammeln

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise