1
|
Yadav KN, Hemmons J, Snider CK, Patel A, Childs M, Delgado MK. Association between patient-reported onset-to-door time and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 disease. Am J Emerg Med 2024; 77:169-176. [PMID: 38157591 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.11.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2023] [Revised: 11/17/2023] [Accepted: 11/23/2023] [Indexed: 01/03/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Timely hospital presentation and treatment are critical for recovery from coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the relationship between symptom onset-to-door time and key clinical outcomes, such as inpatient mortality, has been poorly understood due to the difficulty of retrospectively measuring symptom onset in observational data. This study examines the association between patient-reported symptom onset-to-door time (ODT) and mortality among patients hospitalized and treated for COVID-19 disease. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study of emergency department (ED) encounters of patients with COVID-19 disease who were hospitalized and received remdesivir and/or dexamethasone between March 1, 2020, and March 1, 2022. The exposure was patient-reported ODT in days. The outcome of interest was inpatient mortality, including referral to hospice care. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between ODT and mortality while adjusting for patient characteristics, hospital sites, and seasonality. We tested whether severe illness on hospital presentation modified the association between ODT and mortality. Severe illness was defined by Emergency Severity Index triage level 1 or 2 and hypoxia (SpO2 < 94%). RESULTS Of the 3451 ED hospitalizations included, 439 (12.7%) resulted in mortality, and 1693 (49.1%) involved patients with severe illness on hospital presentation. Greater ODT was significantly associated with lower odds of inpatient mortality (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.93-1.00, P = 0.023). There was a statistically significant interaction between ODT and severe illness at hospital arrival on mortality, suggesting the negative association between ODT and mortality specifically pertained to patients who were not severely ill upon ED presentation (AOR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.87-1.00, P = 0.035). The adjusted probability of mortality was significantly lower for non-severely ill, hospitalized patients who presented on days 8-14 (5.2%-3.3%) versus days 0-3 (9.4%-7.5%) after symptom onset. CONCLUSION More days between symptom onset and hospital arrival were associated with lower mortality among hospitalized patients treated for COVID-19 disease, particularly if they did not have severe illness at ED presentation. However, onset-to-door time was not associated with mortality among hospitalized patients with severe illness at ED presentation. Collectively, these results suggest that non-severely ill COVID-19 patients who require hospitalization are less likely to decompensate with each passing day without severe illness. These findings may continue to guide clinical care delivery for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kuldeep N Yadav
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
| | - Jessica Hemmons
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
| | - Christopher K Snider
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
| | - Arjun Patel
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
| | - Maya Childs
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
| | - M Kit Delgado
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Krutsinger DC, Yadav KN, Hart JL. Self-identified rurality in a nationally representative population in the US. Rural Remote Health 2024; 24:8483. [PMID: 38570202 DOI: 10.22605/rrh8483] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/05/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In the US, health services research most often relies on Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) classification codes to measure rurality. This measure is known to misrepresent rurality and does not rely on individual experiences of rurality associated with healthcare inequities. We aimed to determine a patient-centered RUCA-based definition of rurality. METHODS In this cross-sectional study, we conducted an online survey asking US residents, 'Do you live in a rural area?' and the rationale for their answer. We evaluated the concordance between their self-identified rurality and their ZIP code-derived RUCA designation of rurality by calculating Cohen's kappa (κ) statistic and percent agreement. RESULTS Of the 774 participants, 456 (58.9%) and 318 (41.1%) individuals had conventional urban and rural RUCA classifications, respectively. There was only moderate agreement between perceived rurality and rural RUCA classification (κ=0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.42-0.54). Among people living within RUCA 2-3 defined urban areas (n=51), percent agreement was only 19.6%. Discordance was driven by their perception of the population density, proximity to the nearest neighbor, proximity to a metropolitan area, and the number of homes in their area. Based on our results, we reclassified RUCA 2-3 designations as rural, resulting in an increase in overall concordance (κ=0.56; 95%CI=0.50-0.62). DISCUSSION Patient-centered rural-urban classification is required to effectively evaluate the impact of rurality on health disparities. This study presents a more patient-centric RUCA-based classification of rurality that can be easily operationalized in future research in situations in which self-reported rural status is missing or challenging to obtain. CONCLUSION Reclassification of RUCA 2-3 as rural represents a more patient-centric definition of rurality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dustin C Krutsinger
- Division of Pulmonary Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
| | - Kuldeep N Yadav
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Joanna L Hart
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
- Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Krutsinger DC, Yadav KN, Harhay MO, Bartels K, Courtright KR. A systematic review and meta-analysis of enrollment into ARDS and sepsis trials published between 2009 and 2019 in major journals. Crit Care 2021; 25:392. [PMID: 34781998 PMCID: PMC8591428 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03804-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2021] [Accepted: 10/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Enrollment problems are common among randomized controlled trials conducted in the ICU. However, little is known about actual trial enrollment rates and influential factors. We set out to determine the overall enrollment rate in recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute lung injury (ALI), or sepsis, and which factors influenced enrollment rate. METHODS We conducted a systematic review by searching Pubmed using predefined terms for ARDS/ALI and sepsis to identify individually RCTs published among the seven highest impact general medicine and seven highest impact critical care journals between 2009 and 2019. Cluster randomized trials were excluded. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers using an electronic database management system. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of the eligible trials for the primary outcome of enrollment rate by time and site. RESULTS Out of 457 articles identified, 94 trials met inclusion criteria. Trials most commonly evaluated pharmaceutical interventions (53%), were non-industry funded (78%), and required prospective informed consent (81%). The overall mean enrollment rate was 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.21) participants per month per site. Enrollment in ARDS/ALI and sepsis trials were 0.48 (95% CI 0.32-0.70) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.62-1.56) respectively. The enrollment rate was significantly higher for single-center trials (4.86; 95% CI 2.49-9.51) than multicenter trials (0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.66). Of the 36 trials that enrolled < 95% of the target sample size, 8 (22%) reported slow enrollment as the reason. CONCLUSIONS In this systematic review and meta-analysis, recent ARDS/ALI and sepsis clinical trials had an overall enrollment rate of less than 1 participant per site per month. Novel approaches to improve critical care trial enrollment efficiency are needed to facilitate the translation of best evidence into practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dustin C Krutsinger
- Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 985910 NE Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198, USA.
| | - Kuldeep N Yadav
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania, 300 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.,Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Michael O Harhay
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania, 300 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.,Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Division, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Karsten Bartels
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 985910 NE Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198, USA
| | - Katherine R Courtright
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania, 300 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.,Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Division, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hart J, Summer A, Yadav KN, Peace S, Hong D, Konu M, Clapp JT. Content and Communication of Inpatient Family Visitation Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Sequential Mixed Methods Study. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23:e28897. [PMID: 34406968 PMCID: PMC8477908 DOI: 10.2196/28897] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2021] [Revised: 08/03/2021] [Accepted: 08/03/2021] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Inpatient health care facilities restricted inpatient visitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no existing evidence of how they communicated these policies to the public nor the impact of their communication choices on public perception. OBJECTIVE This study aims to describe patterns of inpatient visitation policies during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and the communication of these policies to the general public, as well as to identify communication strategies that maximize positive impressions of the facility despite visitation restrictions. METHODS We conducted a sequential, exploratory, mixed methods study including a qualitative analysis of COVID-19 era visitation policies published on Pennsylvania-based facility websites, as captured between April 30 and May 20, 2020 (ie, during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States). We also conducted a factorial survey-based experiment to test how key elements of hospitals' visitation policy communication are associated with individuals' willingness to seek care in October 2020. For analysis of the policies, we included all inpatient facilities in Pennsylvania. For the factorial experiment, US adults were drawn from internet research panels. The factorial survey-based experiment presented composite policies that varied in their justification for restricted visitation, the degree to which the facility expressed ownership of the policy, and the inclusion of family-centered care support plans. Our primary outcome was participants' willingness to recommend the hypothetical facility using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS We identified 104 unique policies on inpatient visitation from 363 facilities' websites. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the policies was 14.2. Most policies prohibited family presence (99/104, 95.2%). Facilities justified the restricted visitation policies on the basis of community protection (59/104, 56.7%), authorities' guidance or regulations (34/104, 32.7%), or scientific rationale (23/104, 22.1%). A minority (38/104, 36.5%) addressed how restrictive visitation may impair family-centered care. Most of the policies analyzed used passive voice to communicate restrictions. A total of 1321 participants completed the web-based survey. Visitation policy elements significantly associated with willingness to recommend the facility included justifications based on community protection (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.24-1.68) or scientific rationale (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.51), rather than those based on a governing authority. The facility expressed a high degree of ownership over the decision (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.29), rather than a low degree of ownership; and inclusion of family-centered care support plans (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.51-3.12), rather than no such support. CONCLUSIONS Health systems can immediately improve public receptiveness of restrictive visitation policies by emphasizing community protection, ownership over the facility's policy, and promoting family-centered care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joanna Hart
- Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Amy Summer
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Kuldeep N Yadav
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Summer Peace
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - David Hong
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Michael Konu
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Justin T Clapp
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
- Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Weissman GE, Yadav KN, Srinivasan T, Szymanski S, Capulong F, Madden V, Courtright KR, Hart JL, Asch DA, Ratcliffe SJ, Schapira MM, Halpern SD. Preferences for Predictive Model Characteristics among People Living with Chronic Lung Disease: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Med Decis Making 2020; 40:633-643. [PMID: 32532169 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x20932152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Background. Patients may find clinical prediction models more useful if those models accounted for preferences for false-positive and false-negative predictive errors and for other model characteristics. Methods. We conducted a discrete choice experiment to compare preferences for characteristics of a hypothetical mortality prediction model among community-dwelling patients with chronic lung disease recruited from 3 clinics in Philadelphia. This design was chosen to allow us to quantify "exchange rates" between different characteristics of a prediction model. We provided previously validated educational modules to explain model attributes of sensitivity, specificity, confidence intervals (CI), and time horizons. Patients reported their interest in using prediction models themselves or having their physicians use them. Patients then chose between 2 hypothetical prediction models each containing varying levels of the 4 attributes across 12 tasks. Results. We completed interviews with 200 patients, among whom 95% correctly chose a strictly dominant model in an internal validity check. Patients' interest in predictive information was high for use by themselves (n = 169, 85%) and by their physicians (n = 184, 92%). Interest in maximizing sensitivity and specificity were similar (0.88 percentage points of specificity equivalent to 1 point of sensitivity, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05). Patients were willing to accept a reduction of 6.10 months (95% CI 3.66 to 8.54) in the predictive time horizon for a 1% increase in specificity. Discussion. Patients with chronic lung disease can articulate their preferences for the characteristics of hypothetical mortality prediction models and are highly interested in using such models as part of their care. Just as clinical care should become more patient centered, so should the characteristics of predictive models used to guide that care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary E Weissman
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kuldeep N Yadav
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Trishya Srinivasan
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Stephanie Szymanski
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Florylene Capulong
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Vanessa Madden
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Katherine R Courtright
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Joanna L Hart
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David A Asch
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,The Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Sarah J Ratcliffe
- Department of Public Health Sciences and Division of Biostatistics at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - Marilyn M Schapira
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,The Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Scott D Halpern
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Krutsinger DC, Yadav KN, Cooney E, Brooks S, Halpern SD, Courtright KR. A pilot randomized trial of five financial incentive strategies to increase study enrollment and retention rates. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2019; 15:100390. [PMID: 31431933 PMCID: PMC6580090 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100390] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2019] [Revised: 05/21/2019] [Accepted: 06/01/2019] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Enrollment and retention difficulties remain major barriers to conducting clinical trials. Financial incentives may promote clinical trial enrollment, however delivery methods to maximize enrollment, maximize retention, and minimize cost remains uncertain. Methods We conducted a single-blind, web-based randomized controlled trial of five financial incentive strategies on enrollment and retention rates in a longitudinal study of advance directives among community-dwelling older adults. Participants were eligible to receive a fixed total financial incentive, but the disbursement amounts at each study timepoint (baseline, 2-weeks, 4-weeks, and 6-weeks) differed between study arms. At each timepoint, participants completed a different advance directive. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes of enrollment and retention. Results 1803 adults were randomized to one of five incentive strategies: constant n = 361; increasing n = 357; U-shaped n = 361; surprise n = 360; self-select n = 364. Overall, 989 (54.9%) participants elected to enroll in the advance directive study. There were no differences in enrollment rates between the control (constant 53.5%) and any of the four intervention study arms (increasing 54.3%, p = 0.81; U-shaped 57.3%, p = 0.30; surprise 56.9%, p = 0.35; and self-select 52.2%, p = 0.73). There were no differences in retention rates between the control (constant 2.1%) and any of the four intervention study arms (increasing 5.2%, p = 0.09; U-shaped 3.9%, p = 0.23; surprise 2.4%, p = 0.54; self-select 2.1%, p = 0.63). Conclusions Financial incentive programs for trial enrollment informed by behavioral economic insights were no more effective than a constant-payment approach in this web-based pilot study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dustin C Krutsinger
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, USA.,Center of Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, USA.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, USA.,Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kuldeep N Yadav
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, USA.,Center of Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, USA
| | - Elizabeth Cooney
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, USA.,Center of Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, USA.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, USA
| | - Steven Brooks
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, USA
| | - Scott D Halpern
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, USA.,Center of Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, USA.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, USA.,Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Katherine R Courtright
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, USA.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, USA.,Center of Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, USA.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, USA.,Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Yadav KN, Josephs M, Gabler NB, Detsky ME, Halpern SD, Hart JL. What's behind the white coat: Potential mechanisms of physician-attributable variation in critical care. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0216418. [PMID: 31095596 PMCID: PMC6522043 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216418] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2019] [Accepted: 04/20/2019] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Critical care intensity is known to vary across regions and centers, yet the mechanisms remain unidentified. Physician behaviors have been implicated in the variability of intensive care near the end of life, but physician characteristics that may underlie this association have not been determined. Purpose We sought to identify behavioral attributes that vary among intensivists to generate hypotheses for mechanisms of intensivist-attributable variation in critical care delivery. Methods We administered a questionnaire to intensivists who participated in a prior cohort study in which intensivists made prognostic estimates. We evaluated the degree to which scores on six attribute measures varied across intensivists. Measures were selected for their relevance to preference-sensitive critical care: a modified End-of-Life Preferences (EOLP) scale, Life Orientation Test–Revised (LOT-R), Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE), Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty (PRU) scale, Collett-Lester Fear of Death (CLFOD) scale, and a test of omission bias. We conducted regression analyses assessing relationships between intensivists’ attribute scores and their prognostic accuracy, as physicians’ prognostic accuracy may influence preference-sensitive decisions. Results 20 of 25 eligible intensivists (80%) completed the questionnaire. Intensivists’ scores on the EOLP, LOT-R, PRU, CLFOD, and omission bias measures varied considerably, while their responses on the JSE scale did not. There were no consistent associations between attribute scores and prognostic accuracy. Conclusions Intensivists vary in feasibly measurable attributes relevant to preference-sensitive critical care delivery. These attributes represent candidates for future research aimed at identifying mechanisms of clinician-attributable variation in critical care and developing effective interventions to reduce undue variation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kuldeep N. Yadav
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
| | - Michael Josephs
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
| | - Nicole B. Gabler
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
| | - Michael E. Detsky
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Division of Critical Care Medicine, UHN/Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Scott D. Halpern
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
| | - Joanna L. Hart
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Fridman I, Hart JL, Yadav KN, Higgins ET. Perspectives on using decision-making nudges in physician-patient communications. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0202874. [PMID: 30231040 PMCID: PMC6145510 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202874] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2017] [Accepted: 08/11/2018] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Patients engaging in shared decision making must weigh the likelihood of positive and negative outcomes and deal with uncertainty and negative emotions in the situations where desirable options might not be available. The use of "nudges," or communication techniques that influence patients' choices in a predictable direction, may assist patients in making complex decisions. However, nudging patients may be perceived as inappropriate influence on patients' choices. We sought to determine whether key stakeholders, physicians, and laypersons without clinical training consider the use of nudges to be ethical and appropriate in medical decision making. Eighty-nine resident-physicians and 336 Mechanical-Turk workers (i.e., non-clinicians) evaluated two hypothetical preference-sensitive situations, in which a patient with advanced cancer chooses between chemotherapy and hospice care. We varied the following: (1) whether or not the patient's decision was influenced by a mistaken judgment (i.e., decision-making bias) and (2) whether or not the physician used a nudge. Each participant reported the extent to which the communication was ethical, appropriate, and desirable. Both physicians and non-clinicians considered using nudges more positively than not using them, regardless of an initial decision-making bias in patients' considerations. Decomposing this effect, we found that physicians viewed the nudge that endorsed hospice care more favorably than the nudge that endorsed chemotherapy, while non-clinicians viewed the nudge that endorsed chemotherapy more favorably than the nudge that endorsed hospice care. We discuss implications and propose exploring further physicians' and patients' differences in the perception of nudges; the differences may suggest limitations for using nudges in medical decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ilona Fridman
- Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| | - Joanna L. Hart
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
- Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science (FIELDS) Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
- Center of Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics (CHIBE), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
- Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
| | - Kuldeep N. Yadav
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
- Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science (FIELDS) Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
- Center of Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics (CHIBE), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
| | - E. Tory Higgins
- Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America
- Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Weissman GE, Yadav KN, Madden V, Courtright KR, Hart JL, Asch DA, Schapira MM, Halpern SD. Numeracy and Understanding of Quantitative Aspects of Predictive Models: A Pilot Study. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9:683-692. [PMID: 30157500 DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1669457] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The assessment of user preferences for performance characteristics of patient-oriented clinical prediction models is lacking. It is unknown if complex statistical aspects of prediction models are readily understandable by a general audience. OBJECTIVE A pilot study was conducted among nonclinical audiences to determine the feasibility of interpreting statistical concepts that describe the performance of prediction models. METHODS We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey using the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. The survey instrument included educational modules about predictive models, sensitivity, specificity, and confidence intervals (CIs). Follow-up questions tested participants' abilities to interpret these characteristics with both verbatim and gist knowledge. Objective and subjective numeracy were assessed using previously validated instruments. We also tested understanding of these concepts when embedded in a sample discrete choice experiment task to establish feasibility for future elicitation of preferences using a discrete choice experiment design. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify factors associated with correct interpretation of statistical concepts. RESULTS Among 534 respondents who answered all nine questions, the mean correct responses was 95.9% (95% CI, 93.8-97.4) for sensitivity, 93.1% (95% CI, 90.5-95.0) for specificity, and 86.6% (95% CI, 83.3-89.3) for CIs. Verbatim interpretation was high for all concepts, but significantly higher than gist only for CIs (p < 0.001). Scores on each discrete choice experiment tasks were slightly lower in each category. Both objective and subjective numeracy were positively associated with an increased proportion of correct responses (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION These results suggest that a nonclinical audience can interpret quantitative performance measures of predictive models with very high accuracy. Future development of patient-facing clinical prediction models can feasibly incorporate patient preferences for model features into their development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary E Weissman
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Department of Medicine, Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| | - Kuldeep N Yadav
- Department of Medicine, Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| | - Vanessa Madden
- Department of Medicine, Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| | - Katherine R Courtright
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Department of Medicine, Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| | - Joanna L Hart
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Department of Medicine, Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| | - David A Asch
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,The Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| | - Marilyn M Schapira
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,The Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| | - Scott D Halpern
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Department of Medicine, Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.,Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Hart JL, Gabler NB, Cooney E, Bayes B, Yadav KN, Bryce C, Halpern SD. Are Demographic Characteristics Associated with Advance Directive Completion? A Secondary Analysis of Two Randomized Trials. J Gen Intern Med 2018; 33:145-147. [PMID: 29159444 PMCID: PMC5789110 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-017-4223-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Joanna L Hart
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - Nicole B Gabler
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Elizabeth Cooney
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Brian Bayes
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kuldeep N Yadav
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Cindy Bryce
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Scott D Halpern
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Courtright KR, Halpern SD, Joffe S, Ellenberg SS, Karlawish J, Madden V, Gabler NB, Szymanski S, Yadav KN, Dember LM. Willingness to participate in pragmatic dialysis trials: the importance of physician decisional autonomy and consent approach. Trials 2017; 18:474. [PMID: 29020994 PMCID: PMC5637128 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-2217-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2017] [Accepted: 09/26/2017] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in routine delivery of clinical care can lead to improvements in quality of care, but often have design features that raise ethical concerns. METHODS We performed a discrete choice experiment and used conjoint analysis to assess how specific attributes of pragmatic dialysis trials influenced patients' and physicians' willingness to have their dialysis facility participate in a hypothetical trial of hypertension management. Electronic survey data were collected from 200 patients enrolled from 11 outpatient hemodialysis units and from 203 nephrologists. The three attributes studied were physicians' treatment autonomy, participants' research burden, and the approach to consent. The influence of each attribute was quantified using mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS Similar proportions of patients were willing to have their facilities participate in a trial with high vs. low physician autonomy (77% vs. 79%; p = 0.13) and research burden (76% vs. 80%; p = 0.06). Opt-in, opt-out, and notification-only consent approaches were acceptable to most patients (84%, 82%, and 81%, respectively), but compared to each of these consent approaches, fewer patients (66%) were willing to have their facility participate in a trial that used no notification (p < 0.001 for each 2-way comparison). Among the physicians, similar proportions were willing to participate in trials with high and low physician autonomy (61% and 61%, respectively, p = 0.96) or with low and high burden (60 and 61%, respectively, p = 0.79). However, as for the patients, the consent approach influenced trial acceptability with 77%, 69%, and 62% willing to participate using opt-in, opt-out, and notification-only, respectively, compared to no notification (36%) (p < 0.001 for each 2-way comparison). CONCLUSIONS Curtailing physician's treatment autonomy and increasing the burden associated with participation did not influence patients' or physicians' willingness to participate in the hypothetical research, suggesting that pragmatic dialysis trials are generally acceptable to patients and physicians. Both patients and physicians preferred consent approaches that include at least some level of patient notification, but the majority of patients were still willing to participate in trials that did not notify patients of the research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katherine R. Courtright
- Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
| | - Scott D. Halpern
- Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
| | - Steven Joffe
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA USA
| | - Susan S. Ellenberg
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
| | - Jason Karlawish
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
- Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
| | - Vanessa Madden
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
| | - Nicole B. Gabler
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
| | - Stephanie Szymanski
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
| | - Kuldeep N. Yadav
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
| | - Laura M. Dember
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
- Renal-Electrolyte and Hypertension Division, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Yadav KN, Gabler NB, Cooney E, Kent S, Kim J, Herbst N, Mante A, Halpern SD, Courtright KR. Approximately One In Three US Adults Completes Any Type Of Advance Directive For End-Of-Life Care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017; 36:1244-1251. [DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 311] [Impact Index Per Article: 44.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Kuldeep N. Yadav
- Kuldeep N. Yadav is a research coordinator in the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia
| | - Nicole B. Gabler
- Nicole B. Gabler is a senior research investigator in the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
| | - Elizabeth Cooney
- Elizabeth Cooney is director of research operations of the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center and assistant director of the Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
| | - Saida Kent
- Saida Kent is a medical student at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, in Lexington, and a research assistant in the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania
| | - Jennifer Kim
- Jennifer Kim is a medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, in Philadelphia
| | - Nicole Herbst
- Nicole Herbst is a medical resident at Boston Medical Center, in Massachusetts
| | - Adjoa Mante
- Adjoa Mante is an undergraduate student at Princeton University, in New Jersey
| | - Scott D. Halpern
- Scott D. Halpern is director of the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, director of the Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, and an associate professor of medicine, epidemiology, and medical ethics and health policy, all at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
| | - Katherine R. Courtright
- Katherine R. Courtright ( ) is an instructor of medicine in the Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, and the Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program, all at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Agrawal AK, Singh NK, Yadav KN. Ultrasonographic patterns of hepatobiliary mass lesions. J Assoc Physicians India 1992; 40:522-3. [PMID: 1339212] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
The study deals with an analysis of ultrasonographic (USG) patterns in 100 consecutive patients with hepatobiliary mass lesions. Amoebic liver abscess, carcinoma (CA) gall bladder and secondaries in liver comprised nearly 70% of cases. USG appearances in liver abscess, hepatoma, secondaries in liver and CA gall bladder were variable, but were characteristic in hydatid disease and congenital polycystic disease. Two patients with cholangiocarcinoma revealed dilated biliary channels with an intraluminal mass in common bile duct.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A K Agrawal
- Radiology Institute of Medical Sciences, B.H.U. Varanas
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
|