Underuse of generic medications.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Cardiology↗
Biomedical subjects
Richard L Kravitz
Publications and source records attributed to Richard L Kravitz.
Effects of a tailored interactive multimedia computer program on determinants of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled pilot study in physician offices.
OBJECTIVE: Screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality and is cost-effective, yet uptake is suboptimal. We developed and evaluated a personally tailored interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) to encourage CRC screening. METHODS: Randomized controlled pilot trial evaluating the effects of the personally tailored CRC screening IMCP as compared with a non-tailored IMCP ("electronic leaflet") control. The IMCP was tailored to patient preference, self-efficacy, barriers, and readiness and deployed in busy primary care offices before scheduled doctor visits. Main outcomes were: CRC screening knowledge, self-efficacy, benefits and barriers, and stage of readiness. RESULTS: We enrolled 54 subjects; software glitches occurred in 5, leaving 49 subjects for analysis. In adjusted analyses, compared with control, the experimental group had a significant increase in CRC screening self-efficacy (p=0.049), a significantly greater likelihood of moving to a more advanced stage of readiness for screening (p=0.034), a trend toward fewer perceived barriers to screening (p=0.149), and no difference in perceived benefits or knowledge of screening. CONCLUSION: Our personally tailored IMCP was significantly more effective than control in bolstering CRC screening readiness and self-efficacy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If further streamlined, personally tailored IMCPs might be usefully deployed in busy primary care offices to improve uptake of CRC screening.
Algorithms↗
Physician communication when prescribing new medications.
BACKGROUND: Communication about taking a new medication is critical to proper use of drug therapy and to patient adherence. Despite ample evidence that medications are not taken as prescribed, few investigations have detailed the elements of communication about new medication therapy. This article describes and assesses the quality of physician communication with patients about newly prescribed medications. METHODS: This was an observational study that combined patient and physician surveys with transcribed audiotaped office visits from 185 outpatient encounters with 16 family physicians, 18 internists, and 11 cardiologists in 2 Sacramento, Calif, health care systems between January and November 1999, in which 243 new medications were prescribed. We measured the quality of physician communication when prescribing new medications. RESULTS: Physicians stated the specific medication name for 74% of new prescriptions and explained the purpose of the medication for 87%. Adverse effects were addressed for 35% of medications and how long to take the medication for 34%. Physicians explicitly instructed 55% of patients about the number of tablets to take and explained the frequency or timing of dosing 58% of the time. Physicians fulfilled a mean of 3.1 of 5 expected elements of communication when initiating new prescriptions. They counseled the most about psychiatric medications, fulfilling a mean of 3.7, 3.5, and 3.4, pulmonary, and cardiovascular elements, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When initiating new medications, physicians often fail to communicate critical elements of medication use. This might contribute to misunderstandings about medication directions or necessity and, in turn, lead to patient failure to take medications as directed.
Adult↗
Physicians' perceived knowledge of and responsibility for managing patients' out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs.
BACKGROUND: Most insurers in the US have implemented incentive-based formularies that rely on out-of-pocket costs to influence prescription drug utilization. Medicare Part D plans have broadly adopted such benefit designs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate physicians' perceptions of their knowledge of formularies and out-of-pocket costs, factors that influence knowledge of costs, physicians' perceived responsibility for helping patients manage their out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, and physicians' perceptions of the role of pharmacists in managing these costs. METHODS: A multiple-choice survey was mailed to a random sample of 1200 physician members of the California Medical Association; a phone survey of nonresponders was then conducted. RESULTS: Of 1027 surveys delivered to correct addresses, 509 (49.6%) responses were received. Thirty-three percent of physicians reported that they were usually or always aware of patients' formularies and 20% were usually or always aware of patients' out-of-pocket costs for medications. Surgeons, emergency department physicians, and physicians that prescribe from more formularies than other physicians are less likely to be aware of patients' out-of-pocket costs, while physicians in large practices and those who use computers to prescribe are more aware. While 91% of physicians agreed that it is important that patients' out-of-pocket costs be managed, 40% somewhat or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to help. Sixty-five percent of physicians believed that it is the responsibility of the pharmacist to be familiar with patients' out-of-pocket costs. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often lack the knowledge to assist patients in the management of their out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs and they depend on pharmacists to help patients manage those costs. Computer order entry and resources available in large physician organizations improve physicians' awareness of out-of-pocket costs when prescribing.
Attitude of Health Personnel↗
Mandating coverage of biologic therapies for rheumatic disease: where evidence and politics meet.
In this issue of Arthritis Care & Research, we inaugurate an occasional series of commentaries entitled Policy Matters. In all of clinical research, our goal is to improve patient outcomes. Usually, that means focusing on the medical, demographic, and socioeconomic factors at the level of individuals with rheumatic diseases; sometimes, our scope of inquiry expands to encompass the impact of the communities in which they live. However, increasingly, the welfare of persons with rheumatic conditions is also affected by health policies through such diverse mechanisms as reimbursement decisions for specific treatments, insurance coverage, manpower, and NIH budgets (the foregoing list is hardly exhaustive).Recently, a piece of legislation was introduced in California (SB913) that has the potential to alter the availability of biologic response modifying agents (BRMs) by mandating that health plans that provide coverage for one such agent include all on their formularies (a revised version would preclude a trial of another disease-modifying antirheumatic drug before use of a BRM). In this state, the California Health Benefits Review Program (CHBRP) provides evidence reviews of the medical effectiveness, cost, and public health impact of proposed health insurance mandates for the legislature. The analysts from the University of California who conducted the medical effectiveness review of SB913 for CHBRP provide a legislative history of the proposed law in this article. We hope that the readership of Arthritis Care & Research find this article informative as an exemplar of the policies that could dramatically alter the welfare of our patients.
Biological Therapy↗
What are the public health effects of direct-to-consumer drug advertising?
BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE: Only two industrialized countries, the United States and New Zealand, allow direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription medicines, although New Zealand is planning a ban. The challenge for these governments is ensuring that DTCA is more beneficial than harmful. Proponents of DTCA argue that it helps to inform the public about available treatments and stimulates appropriate use of drugs for high-priority illnesses (such as statin use in people with ischemic heart disease). Critics argue that the information in the adverts is often biased and misleading, and that DTCA raises prescribing costs without net evidence of health benefits.
Advertising↗
Connoisseurs of care? Unannounced standardized patients' ratings of physicians.
BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction surveys can be informative, but bias and poor response rates may limit their utility as stable measures of physician performance. Using unannounced standardized patients (SPs) may overcome some of these limitations because their experience and training make them able judges of physician behavior. OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand the reliability of unannounced SPs in rating primary care physicians when covertly presenting as real patients. STUDY DESIGN: Data from 2 studies (Patient Centered Communication [PCC]; Social Influences in Practice [SIP]) were included. For the PCC study, 5 SPs made 192 visits to 96 physicians; for the SIP study, 18 SPs made 292 visits to 146 physicians. SPs visits to physicians were randomized, thus avoiding mutual selection bias. Each SP rated 16 to 38 physicians on interpersonal skills (autonomy support: PCC, SIP), technical skills (information gathering: SIP-only), and overall satisfaction (SIP-only). We evaluated SP evaluation consistency (physician vs. total variance rho), and SPs' overall satisfaction with specific dimensions of physician performance. RESULTS: Scale reliability varied from 0.71 to 0.92. Physician rhos (95% confidence intervals) for autonomy support were 0.40 (0.22-0.58; PCC) and 0.30 (0.14-0.45; SIP); information gathering rho was 0.46 (0.33-0.59; SIP). Overall SP satisfaction rho was 0.47 (0.34-0.60; SIP). SPs varied significantly in adjusted overall satisfaction levels, but not other dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses provide some evidence that medical connoisseurship can be learned. When adequately sampled by trained SPs, some physician skills can be reliably measured in community practice settings.
Clinical Competence↗
Do patient requests for antidepressants enhance or hinder physicians' evaluation of depression? A randomized controlled trial.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to ascertain whether patients' requests for antidepressants affect visit duration or history taking by primary care physicians (PCPs) for patients with depressive symptoms and a coexisting musculoskeletal disorder and to determine whether more thorough history taking is associated with diagnostic accuracy or with provision of minimally acceptable initial care for major depression. DESIGN: This was a randomized trial using standardized patients (SPs). Six roles involved 2 conditions (major depression and adjustment disorder, both with coexisting musculoskeletal conditions) and 3 patient request types (brand-specific, general, or none). We conducted the study in 152 PCP offices in Northern California and Rochester, New York. Physicians were assigned randomly to see 2 SPs with depression/wrist pain or adjustment disorder/back pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physician history-taking for depression and the musculoskeletal condition; depression diagnosis in the medical record; antidepressant prescriptions/samples; referral/follow-up recommendations; visit duration; and provision of minimally acceptable initial depression care. RESULTS: General antidepressant requests were associated with more depression history-taking (Adjusted Parameter Estimate = 0.80 more questions of 10 (95% confidence interval = 0.31-1.29, P < 0.001); brand-specific requests were marginally associated with more depression history-taking (Adjusted Parameter Estimate = 0.45, 95% confidence interval = -0.04-0.93, P = 0.07). Antidepressant medication requests were not related to musculo-skeletal question asking (P > 0.3) or visit length (P > 0.8). Depression history taking was directly associated with the likelihood of a chart diagnosis of depression and the provision of minimally acceptable initial depression care. CONCLUSION: General antidepressant requests increase depression history taking, including screening for suicide. Patients' requests for medication do not appear to short-circuit history taking for depression or distract the physician's attention from coexisting musculoskeletal conditions.
Adjustment Disorders↗
Caught in the act? Prevalence, predictors, and consequences of physician detection of unannounced standardized patients.
Objective. To examine the prevalence, predictors, and consequences of physician detection of unannounced standardized patients (SPs) in a study of the impact of direct-to-consumer advertising on treatment for depression. Data Sources. Eighteen trained SPs were randomly assigned to conduct 298 unannounced audio-recorded visits with 152 primary care physicians in three U.S. cities between May 2003 and May 2004. Study Design. Randomized controlled trial using SPs. SPs portrayed six roles, created by crossing two clinical conditions (major depression or adjustment disorder) with three medication request scripts (brand-specific request, general request for an antidepressant, or no request). Data Collection. Within 2 weeks following the visit, physicians completed a form asking whether they "suspected" conducting an office visit with an SP during the past 2 weeks; 296 (99 percent) detection forms were returned. Physicians provided contextual data, a Clinician Background Questionnaire. SPs filled in a Standardized Patient Reporting Form for each visit and returned all written prescriptions and medication samples to the laboratory. Principal Findings. Depending on the definition, detection rates ranged from 5 percent (unambiguous detection) to 23.6 percent (any degree of suspicion) of SP visits. In 12.8 percent of encounters, physicians accurately detected the SP before or during the visit but they only rarely believed their suspicions affected their clinical behavior. In random effects logistic regression analyses controlling for role, actor, physician, and practice factors, suspected visits occurred less frequently in HMO settings than in solo practice settings (p<.05). Physicians more frequently referred SPs to mental health professionals when visits aroused high suspicion (p<.05). Conclusions. Trained actors portrayed patient roles conveying mood disorders at low levels of detection. There was some evidence for differential treatment of detected standardized patients by physicians with regard to referrals but not antidepressant prescribing or follow-up recommendations. Systematic assessment of detection is recommended when SPs are used in studies of clinical process and quality of care.
Adjustment Disorders↗
What drives referral from primary care physicians to mental health specialists? A randomized trial using actors portraying depressive symptoms.
BACKGROUND: Referral from primary care to the mental health specialty sector is important but poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: Identify physician characteristics influencing mental health referral. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial using Standardized Patients (SPs). SETTING: Offices of primary care physicians in 3 cities. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty-two family physicians and general internists recruited from 4 broad practice settings; 18 middle aged Caucasian female actors. INTERVENTION: Two hundred and ninety-eight unannounced SP visits, with assignments constrained so physicians saw 1 SP with major depression and 1 with adjustment disorder. MEASUREMENTS: Mental health referrals via SP written reports; physician and system characteristics through a self-administered physician questionnaire. RESULTS: Among 298 SP visits, 107 (36%) resulted in mental health referral. Referrals were less likely among physicians with greater self-confidence in their ability to manage antidepressant therapy (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17 to 0.86) and were more likely if physicians typically spent > or =10% of professional time on nonclinical activities (AOR 3.42, 95% CI 1.45 to 8.07), had personal life experience with psychotherapy for depression (AOR 2.74, 95% CI 1.15 to 6.52), or usually had access to mental health consultation within 2 weeks (AOR 2.94, 95% CI 1.26 to 6.92). LIMITATION: The roles portrayed by SPs may not reflect the experience of a typical panel of primary care patients. CONCLUSIONS: Controlling for patient and health system factors, physicians' therapeutic confidence and personal experience were important influences on mental health referral. Research is needed to determine if addressing these factors can facilitate more appropriate care.
Adult↗
Types of information physicians provide when prescribing antidepressants.
BACKGROUND: Providing antidepressant information to patients may foster greater adherence to therapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess physician information-giving while prescribing antidepressants, and to identify factors that influence the provision of information. DESIGN: Randomized experiment using standardized patients (SPs). Standardized patients roles were generated by crossing 2 clinical conditions (major depression or adjustment disorder) with 3 medication request types (brand-specific, general, or none). PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and fifty-two general internists and family physicians recruited from solo and group practices and health maintenance organizations; cooperation rates ranged from 53% to 61%. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed physician information-giving by analyzing audio-recordings of interactions between physicians and SPs, and collected physician background information by survey. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the influence of patient and physician factors on physicians' provision of information. RESULTS: One hundred and one physicians prescribed antidepressants, accounting for 131 interactions. The mean age of physicians was 46.3 years; 69% were males. Physicians mentioned an average of 5.7 specific topics of antidepressant-related information (of a possible maximum of 11). The most frequently mentioned topic was purpose (96.1%). Physicians infrequently provided information about the duration of therapy (34.9%) and costs (21.4%). Standardized patients who presented with major depression received less information than those with adjustment disorder, and older and solo/private practice physicians provided significantly less information to SPs. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians provide limited information to patients while prescribing antidepressants, often omitting critical information that may promote adherence. Mechanisms are needed to ensure that patients receive pertinent antidepressant information.
Adjustment Disorders↗
Providing health care services to the formerly homeless: a quasi-experimental evaluation.
We performed a quasi-experiment to assess the effects of a focused health care intervention delivered in transitional housing facilities in Sacramento, California. Four transitional housing facilities (THFs) receiving the intervention were compared with 2 THFs that did not receive it. A multidisciplinary team provided a diverse package of services to residents at the intervention sites. Residents at comparison sites received usual care. Survey and physical examination data were collected in repeated cross-sectional surveys at baseline (pre-intervention) and after 6 and 18 months of follow-up (post-intervention). Using analysis of covariance techniques, our statistical models showed improved odds of receiving recommended gynecologic preventive care and decreased odds of frequent Emergency Department use at 18 months among residents at the intervention sites. At 6 months, residents at the intervention sites also experienced improved blood pressure control. There was no intervention effect on residents' access to specialists or on physical functioning, mental health, or dental health.
Adult↗
Physicians' perceptions of relevant prescription drug costs: do costs to the individual patient or to the population matter most?
OBJECTIVES: Physicians may be aware of at least 2 types of costs when prescribing: patient's out-of-pocket costs and the actual costs of the medication. We evaluated physicians' perceptions about relevant costs for prescription drugs and the importance of communication about these costs. STUDY DESIGN: Mailed survey to a random sample of 1200 physician members of the California Medical Association, and a phone survey of a sample of nonresponders. METHODS: Descriptive statistics of survey items, McNemar's test to compare survey item responses, and logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between physician, practice, and system variables and physicians' perceptions of relevant medication costs. RESULTS: Of respondents with correct addresses, 49.6% responded to the survey; 13% of nonresponders were contacted by phone. Approximately 91% and 80% of physicians reported that it is important to manage patients' out-of-pocket costs and total medication costs, respectively. When comparing the relative importance of managing the 2 types of costs, 59% of physicians agreed that managing patients' out-of-pocket costs was more important than managing the total medication costs and only 16% disagreed. Physicians believed it was more important to discuss out-of-pocket costs than total costs with patients (P < .0001), but only 15% of physicians reported discussing out-of-pocket costs frequently and 5% reported talking about total medication costs frequently. Physicians who managed more Medicare patients had a greater likelihood than physicians managing fewer Medicare patients of prioritizing out-of-pocket cost rather than total cost management (P = .038), and generalists had a greater likelihood than medical subspecialists (P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians prioritize managing out-of-pocket costs over total medication costs. Pharmacy benefit designs that use patient out-of-pocket cost incentives to influence utilization are addressing the costs to which physicians may be most responsive. When physicians face conflicts between managing patients' out-of-pocket costs and total costs, they will likely try to protect the patients' resources at the expense of the insurer or society. Efforts to align patients', insurers', and societies' incentives will simplify prescribing decisions and result in better value in prescribing.
Adult↗
Physician communication about the cost and acquisition of newly prescribed medications.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency and content of physician discussions about the cost and acquisition of new medications. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative study combining patient and physician surveys with transcribed audiotaped office visits from 185 outpatient encounters with 15 family physicians, 18 internists, and 11 cardiologists in 2 Sacramento healthcare systems between January and November 1999, in which 243 new medications were prescribed. METHODS: Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed to describe conversations concerning the cost and acquisition of new medication prescriptions, frequencies of discussions were described, and multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the predictors of cost discussions. RESULTS: For one third of newly prescribed medications, physicians discussed an aspect of acquisition, including cost and insurance coverage for 12%, logistics of obtaining medications for 18%, and medication supply for 9%. Patients initiated cost or insurance concerns for fewer than 2% of the new medications prescribed. There were 5 discussions about patient out-of-pocket costs and 7 discussions offering tips for cost savings. In multivariate analysis, cost discussions were more likely to occur with patients earning less than 20,000 dollars per year compared with those earning more than 60,000 dollars per year, were less likely to occur with medications prescribed by family physicians or internists compared with cardiologists, and were less likely with medications prescribed to older patients. CONCLUSIONS: Physician-patient discussions about new medication cost and other acquisition issues, especially medication affordability, occur infrequently. Because physicians may not recognize patients' financial impediments to acquiring medications, this issue should be raised when prescribing new medications.
Adult↗
Promise and perils for patients and physicians.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Algorithms↗
Influence of patients' requests for direct-to-consumer advertised antidepressants: a randomized controlled trial.
CONTEXT: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs in the United States is both ubiquitous and controversial. Critics charge that it leads to overprescribing, while proponents counter that it helps avert underuse of effective treatments, especially for conditions that are poorly recognized or stigmatized. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the effects of patients' DTC-related requests on physicians' initial treatment decisions in patients with depressive symptoms. DESIGN: Randomized trial using standardized patients (SPs). Six SP roles were created by crossing 2 conditions (major depression or adjustment disorder with depressed mood) with 3 request types (brand-specific, general, or none). SETTING: Offices of primary care physicians in Sacramento, Calif; San Francisco, Calif; and Rochester, NY, between May 2003 and May 2004. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty-two family physicians and general internists recruited from solo and group practices and health maintenance organizations; cooperation rates ranged from 53% to 61%. INTERVENTIONS: The SPs were randomly assigned to make 298 unannounced visits, with assignments constrained so physicians saw 1 SP with major depression and 1 with adjustment disorder. The SPs made a brand-specific drug request, a general drug request, or no request (control condition) in approximately one third of visits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on prescribing, mental health referral, and primary care follow-up obtained from SP written reports, visit audiorecordings, chart review, and analysis of written prescriptions and drug samples. The effects of request type on prescribing were evaluated using contingency tables and confirmed in generalized linear mixed models that accounted for clustering and adjusted for site, physician, and visit characteristics. RESULTS: Standardized patient role fidelity was excellent, and the suspicion rate that physicians had seen an SP was 13%. In major depression, rates of antidepressant prescribing were 53%, 76%, and 31% for SPs making brand-specific, general, and no requests, respectively (P<.001). In adjustment disorder, antidepressant prescribing rates were 55%, 39%, and 10%, respectively (P<.001). The results were confirmed in multivariate models. Minimally acceptable initial care (any combination of an antidepressant, mental health referral, or follow-up within 2 weeks) was offered to 98% of SPs in the major depression role making a general request, 90% of those making a brand-specific request, and 56% of those making no request (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' requests have a profound effect on physician prescribing in major depression and adjustment disorder. Direct-to-consumer advertising may have competing effects on quality, potentially both averting underuse and promoting overuse.
Adjustment Disorders↗
Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: theoretical and practical issues.
The goal of patient-centered communication (PCC) is to help practitioners provide care that is concordant with the patient's values, needs and preferences, and that allows patients to provide input and participate actively in decisions regarding their health and health care. PCC is widely endorsed as a central component of high-quality health care, but it is unclear what it is and how to measure it. PCC includes four communication domains: the patient's perspective, the psychosocial context, shared understanding, and sharing power and responsibility. Problems in measuring PCC include lack of theoretical and conceptual clarity, unexamined assumptions, lack of adequate control for patient characteristics and social contexts, modest correlations between survey and observational measures, and overlap of PCC with other constructs. We outline problems in operationalizing PCC, choosing tools for assessing PCC, choosing data sources, identifying mediators of PCC, and clarifying outcomes of PCC. We propose nine areas for improvement: (1) developing theory-based operational definitions of PCC; (2) clarifying what is being measured; (3) accounting for the communication behaviors of each individual in the encounter as well as interactions among them; (4) accounting for context; (5) validating of instruments; (6) interpreting patient ratings of their physicians; (7) doing longitudinal studies; (8) examining pathways and mediators of links between PCC and outcomes; and (9) dealing with the complexity of the construct of PCC. We discuss the use of observational and survey measures, multi-method and mixed-method research, and standardized patients. The increasing influence of the PCC literature to guide medical education, licensure of clinicians, and assessments of quality provides a strong rationale for further clarification of these measurement issues.
Communication↗
Patient participation in medical consultations: why some patients are more involved than others.
BACKGROUND: Patients vary in their willingness and ability to actively participate in medical consultations. Because more active patient participation contributes to improved health outcomes and quality of care, it is important to understand factors affecting the way patients communicate with healthcare providers. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to examine the extent to which patient participation in medical interactions is influenced by 1) the patient's personal characteristics (age, gender, education, ethnicity); 2) the physician's communication style (eg, use of partnership-building and supportive talk); and 3) the clinical setting (eg, the health condition, medical specialty). RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: The authors conducted a post hoc cross-sectional analysis of 279 physician-patient interactions from 3 clinical sites: 1) primary care patients in Sacramento, California, 2) patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from the San Francisco Bay area, and 3) patients with lung cancer from a VA hospital in Texas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures included the degree to which patients asked questions, were assertive, and expressed concerns and the degree to which physicians used partnership-building and supportive talk (praise, reassurance, empathy) in their consultations. RESULTS: The majority of active participation behaviors were patient-initiated (84%) rather than prompted by physician partnership-building or supportive talk. Patients who were more active participants received more facilitative communication from physicians, were more educated, and were more likely to be white than of another ethnicity. Women more willingly expressed negative feelings and concerns. There was considerable variability in patient participation across the 3 clinical settings. Female physicians were more likely to use supportive talk than males, and physicians generally used less supportive talk with nonwhite compared with white patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patient participation in medical encounters depends on a complex interplay of personal, physician, and contextual factors. Although more educated and white patients tended to be more active participants than their counterparts, the strongest predictors of patient participation were situation-specific, namely the clinical setting and the physician's communicative style. Physicians could more effectively facilitate patient involvement by more frequently using partnership-building and supportive communication. Future research should investigate how the nuances of individual clinical settings (eg, the health condition, time allotted for the visit) impose constraints or opportunities for more effective patient involvement in care.
Adult↗