PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Audiey Kao

Publications and source records attributed to Audiey Kao.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

The effect of physician disclosure of financial incentives on trust.

BACKGROUND: Many physicians receive financial incentives to limit their ordering of expensive tests and procedures. While Medicare mandates disclosure of incentives, it is not clear how to inform patients without undermining trust. METHODS: Our objective was to determine public opinion about physician disclosure of financial incentives and how this might be best communicated to patients. The 2002 General Social Survey included 2765 interviews from a probability sample of English-speaking US households. The interview included questions about financial incentives and an audiotaped scenario of a physician discussing the impact of financial incentives on ordering a magnetic resonance image. Respondents heard 1 of 6 randomly selected disclosure strategies. The measurements included ratings of trust, satisfaction, agreement with the physician's decision, and likelihood of remaining with the physician/health plan or seeking a second opinion. RESULTS: Nearly half (48.8%) of respondents had previously heard of financial incentives to limit test ordering. Of the respondents, 94.8% wanted to be told about incentives, at the time of enrollment in a health plan (80.5%), by a health plan representative (44.8%), their physician (17.1%), or both (38.1%). Of the 6 different disclosure strategies, "addressing emotions" and "negotiation" were associated with the best outcomes, while "common enemy" and "denying influences" were most negatively perceived. Black and Hispanic subjects were less likely to express satisfaction or trust and more likely to disenroll or seek a second opinion. CONCLUSIONS: The public wants information about physician financial incentives. Specific communication styles enhance how this information is conveyed to patients, increasing trust and supporting the physician-patient relationship.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2005

Not all patients want to participate in decision making. A national study of public preferences.

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine calls for physicians to engage patients in making clinical decisions, but not every patient may want the same level of participation. OBJECTIVES: 1) To assess public preferences for participation in decision making in a representative sample of the U.S. population. 2) To understand how demographic variables and health status influence people's preferences for participation in decision making. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A population-based survey of a fully representative sample of English-speaking adults was conducted in concert with the 2002 General Social Survey (N= 2,765). Respondents expressed preferences ranging from patient-directed to physician-directed styles on each of 3 aspects of decision making (seeking information, discussing options, making the final decision). Logistic regression was used to assess the relationships of demographic variables and health status to preferences. MAIN RESULTS: Nearly all respondents (96%) preferred to be offered choices and to be asked their opinions. In contrast, half of the respondents (52%) preferred to leave final decisions to their physicians and 44% preferred to rely on physicians for medical knowledge rather than seeking out information themselves. Women, more educated, and healthier people were more likely to prefer an active role in decision making. African-American and Hispanic respondents were more likely to prefer that physicians make the decisions. Preferences for an active role increased with age up to 45 years, but then declined. CONCLUSION: This population-based study demonstrates that people vary substantially in their preferences for participation in decision making. Physicians and health care organizations should not assume that patients wish to participate in clinical decision making, but must assess individual patient preferences and tailor care accordingly.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Surgical "placebo" controls.

OBJECTIVE: To set ethical guidelines on the use of surgical placebo controls in the design of surgical trials. BACKGROUND DATA: Ethical concerns recently arose from surgical trials where subjects in the control arm underwent surgical procedures that had the appearance of a therapeutic intervention, but during which the essential therapeutic maneuver was omitted. Although there are ethical guidelines on the use of a placebo in drug trials, little attention has been paid to the use of a surgical placebo control in surgical trials. METHODS: The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs developed ethical guidelines based on a wide literature search and consultation with experts. RESULTS: Surgical placebo controls should be limited to studies of new surgical procedures aimed at treating diseases that are not amenable to other surgical therapies, and are reasonably anticipated to be susceptible to substantial placebo effects. If the standard nonsurgical treatment is efficacious and acceptable to the patient, then it must be offered as part of the study design. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical placebo controls should be used only when no other trial design will yield the requisite data and should always be accompanied by a rigorous informed consent process and a careful consideration of the related risks and benefits. The recommended ethical guidelines were adopted as AMA ethics policy and are now incorporated in the AMA's Code of Medical Ethics.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗