Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public

There is often a discrepancy between quality of life estimates from patients and the general public. These discrepancies are of concern to the disability community, who worry that the public does not understand how valuable life can be for people with disabilities; policy planners, who must decide whose quality of life estimates to use in economic analysis; and practitioners and patients facing difficult medical decisions, who may have to worry that people have difficulty imagining unfamiliar health states. We outline several factors that may contribute to these discrepancies. Discrepancies might occur because patients and the public interpret health state descriptions differently – for example, making different assumptions about the recency of onset of the health state, or about the presence of comorbidities. Discrepancies might also arise if patients adapt to illness and the public does not predict this adaptation; because of response shift in how people use quality of life scales; because of a focusing illusion whereby people forget to consider obvious aspects of unfamiliar health states; because of contrast effects, whereby negative life events make people less bothered by less severe negative life events; and because of different vantage points, with patients viewing their illness in terms of the benefits that would result from regaining health, while the public views the illness in terms of the costs associated with losing good health. Decisions about whose values to measure for the purposes of economic analyses, and how to measure discrepancies, should take these potential contributing factors into account.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43565/1/11136_2004_Article_5107167.pd

Public Response to Cost-Quality Tradeoffs in Clinical Decisions.

PURPOSE: To explore public attitudes toward the incorporation of cost-effectiveness analysis into clinical decisions. METHODS: The authors presented 781 jurors with a survey describing 1 of 6 clinical encounters in which a physician has to choose between cancer screening tests. They provided cost-effectiveness data for all tests, and in each scenario, the most effective test was more expensive. They instructed respondents to imagine that he or she was the physician in the scenario and asked them to choose which test to recommend and then explain their choice in an open-ended manner. The authors then qualitatively analyzed the responses by identifying themes and developed a coding scheme. Two authors separately coded the statements with high overall agreement (kappa = 0.76). Categories were not mutually exclusive. RESULTS: Overall, 410 respondents (55%) chose the most expensive option, and 332 respondents (45%) choose a less expensive option. Explanatory comments were given by 82% respondents. Respondents who chose the most expensive test focused on the increased benefit (without directly acknowledging the additional cost) (39%), a general belief that life is more important than money (22%), the significance of cancer risk for the patient in the scenario (20%), the belief that the benefit of the test was worth the additional cost (8%), and personal anecdotes/preferences (6%). Of the respondents who chose the less expensive test, 40% indicated that they did not believe that the patient in the scenario was at significant risk for cancer, 13% indicated that they thought the less expensive test was adequate or not meaningfully different from the more expensive test, 12% thought the cost of the test was not worth the additional benefit, 9% indicated that the test was too expensive (without mention of additional benefit), and 7% responded that resources were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Public response to cost-quality tradeoffs is mixed. Although some respondents justified their decision based on the cost-effectiveness information provided, many focused instead on specific features of the scenario or on general beliefs about whether cost should be incorporated into clinical decisions

Effect of Assessment Method on the Discrepancy between Judgments of Health Disorders People Have and Do Not Have: A Web Study

Three experiments on the World Wide Web asked subjects to rate the severity of common health disorders such as acne or arthritis. People who had a disorder (“Haves”) tended to rate it as less severe than people who did not have it (“Not-haves”). Two explanations of this Have versus Not-have discrepancy were rejected. By one account, people change their reference point when they rate a disorder that they have. More precise reference points would, on this account, reduce the discrepancy, but, if anything, the discrepancy was larger. By another account, people who do not have the disorder focus on attributes that are most affected by it, and the discrepancy should decrease when people make ratings on several attributes. Again, if anything, the discrepancy increased when ratings were on separate attributes (combined by a weighted average). The discrepancy varied in size and direction across disorders. Subjects also thought that they would be less affected than others

Patient Medication Instruction and Provider Interactions: Effects on Knowledge and Attitudes

This prospective study examines whether a patient medication instruction sheet (PMI) given to clinic patients by their health care provider affects knowledge and/or attitudes with thiazide diuretic use as part of an antihypertensive regimen. Adult male patients ( N = 285) in a general medicine clinic were assigned to groups receiving the American Medical Association PMI describing their diuretic. Patients getting the PMI obtained it either directly from their provider or at the pharmacy dispensing window. All patients were surveyed by phone 1 week following the clinic visit with regard to the PMI, knowledge of medication use, and attitudes toward drug use. Results indicate that a provider-dispensed PMI results in higher levels of drug knowledge and greater patient satisfaction with their knowledge than a pharmacy-dispensed PMI. In addition, the PMIs educational value may be lessened by an incomplete verbal consult. This study demonstrates that the AMA PMI is an effective educational tool when distributed by a provider and can promote better understanding and use of prescribed medications.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66928/2/10.1177_109019818601300106.pd

Misperceptions About β-Blockers and Diuretics

Based on a series of clinical trials showing no difference in the effectiveness or tolerability of most major classes of antihypertensive medications, the Joint National Commission on High Blood Pressure Treatment recommends that physicians prescribe β-blockers or diuretics as initial hypertensive therapy unless there are compelling indications for another type of medication. Nevertheless, many physicians continue to favor more expensive medications like angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and calcium channel blockers as first line agents. The persistent use of these agents raises questions as to whether physicians perceive ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers to be better than β-blockers and diuretics. METHODS:  We surveyed 1,200 primary care physicians in 1997, and another 500 primary care physicians in 2000, and asked them to estimate the relative effectiveness and side effects of 4 classes of medication in treating a hypothetical patient with uncomplicated hypertension: ACE inhibitors, β-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics. In addition, we asked them to indicate whether they ever provided free samples of hypertension medications to their patients. RESULTS:  Perceptions of the relative effectiveness and side effects of the 4 classes of hypertension medications did not significantly change over the 3 years, nor did prescription recommendations. Physicians perceive that diuretics are less effective at lowering blood pressure than the other 3 classes ( P  < .001). They also perceive that β-blockers are less tolerated than the other 3 classes ( P  < .001). In a multivariate model, perceptions of effectiveness and tolerability displayed significant associations with prescription preference independent of background variables. The only other variable to contribute significantly to the model was provision of free medication samples to patients. CONCLUSIONS:  Despite numerous clinical trials showing no difference in the effectiveness or side-effect profiles of these 4 classes of drugs, most physicians believed that diuretics were less effective and β-blockers were less tolerated than other medications. Moreover, their prescription practices were associated with their provision of free samples provided by pharmaceutical representatives, even after adjusting for other demographic characteristics. Efforts to increase physicians’ prescribing of β-blockers and diuretics may need to be directed at overcoming misunderstandings about the effectiveness and tolerability of these medicines. J GEN INTERN MED 2003;18:977–983.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75385/1/j.1525-1497.2003.20414.x.pd

Leaky doors: private captivity as a prominent source of bird introductions in Australia

The international pet trade is a major source of emerging invasive vertebrate species. We used online resources as a novel source of information for accidental bird escapes, and we investigated the factors that influence the frequency and distribution of bird escapes at a continental scale. We collected information on over 5,000 pet birds reported to be missing on animal websites during the last 15 years in Australia. We investigated whether variables linked to pet ownership successfully predicted bird escapes, and we assessed the potential distribution of these escapes. Most of the reported birds were parrots (> 90%), thus, we analysed factors associated with the frequency of parrot escapes. We found that bird escapes in Australia are much more frequent than previously acknowledged. Bird escapes were reported more frequently within, or around, large Australian capital cities. Socio-economic factors, such as the average personal income level of the community, and the level of human modification to the environment were the best predictors of bird escapes. Cheaper parrot species, Australian natives, and parrot species regarded as peaceful or playful were the most frequently reported escapees. Accidental introductions have been overlooked as an important source of animal incursions. Information on bird escapes is available online in many higher income countries and, in Australia, this is particularly apparent for parrot species. We believe that online resources may provide useful tools for passive surveillance for non-native pet species. Online surveillance will be particularly relevant for species that are highly reported, such as parrots, and species that are either valuable or highly commensal.Miquel Vall-llosera, Phillip Casse

The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention supported five randomized trials to recruit to target: a mixed-methods evaluation

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI) on recruitment in challenging randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have applied the intervention. The QRI aims to understand recruitment difficulties, and then implements ‘QRI-actions’ to address these as recruitment proceeds.Study Design and SettingA mixed-methods study, comprising: a) before-and-after comparisons of recruitment rates and numbers of patients approached, and b) qualitative case studies, including documentary analysis and interviews with RCT investigators.ResultsFive UK-based publicly-funded RCTs were included in the evaluation. All recruited to target. RCT2 and RCT5 both received up-front pre-recruitment training before the intervention was applied. RCT2 did not encounter recruitment issues and recruited above target from its outset. Recruitment difficulties, particularly communication issues, were identified and addressed through QRI-actions in RCTs 1, 3, 4 and 5. Randomization rates significantly improved post-QRI-action in RCTs 1,3, and 4. QRI-actions addressed issues with approaching eligible patients in RCTs 3 and 5, which both saw significant increases in patients approached. Trial investigators reported that the QRI had unearthed issues they had been unaware of, and reportedly changed their practices post QRI-action.ConclusionThere is promising evidence to suggest the QRI can support recruitment to difficult RCTs. This needs to be substantiated with future controlled evaluations

Proceedings of the 13th annual conference of INEBRIA

CITATION: Watson, R., et al. 2016. Proceedings of the 13th annual conference of INEBRIA. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 11:13, doi:10.1186/s13722-016-0062-9.The original publication is available at https://ascpjournal.biomedcentral.comENGLISH SUMMARY : Meeting abstracts.https://ascpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13722-016-0062-9Publisher's versio

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570