Open and hidden agendas of "asymptomatic" patients who request check-up exams

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for a check-up recommend routine screening not triggered by specific symptoms for some known risk factors and diseases in the general population. Patients' perceptions and expectations regarding a check-up exam may differ from these principles. However, quantitative and qualitative data about the discrepancy between patient- and provider expectations for this type of clinic consultation is lacking. METHODS: For a year, we prospectively enrolled 66 patients who explicitly requested a "check-up" at our medical outpatient division. All patients actively denied upon prompting having any symptoms or specific health concerns at the time they made their appointment. All consultations were videotaped and analysed for information about spontaneously mentioned symptoms and reasons for the clinic consultation ("open agendas") and for cues to hidden patient agendas using the Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS). RESULTS: All patients initially declared to be asymptomatic but this was ultimately the case in only 7 out of 66 patients. The remaining 59 patients spontaneously mentioned a mean of 4.2 ± 3.3 symptoms during their first consultation. In 23 patients a total of 31 hidden agendas were revealed. The primary categories for hidden agendas were health concerns, psychosocial concerns and the patient's concept of disease. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients requesting a general check-up tend to be motivated by specific symptoms and health concerns and are not "asymptomatic" patients who primarily come for preventive issues. Furthermore, physicians must be alert for possible hidden agendas, as one in three patients have one or more hidden reasons for requesting a check-up

Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Some patients will experience more or less benefit from treatment than the averages reported from clinical trials; such variation in therapeutic outcome is termed heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Identifying HTE is necessary to individualize treatment. The degree to which heterogeneity is sought and analyzed correctly in the general medical literature is unknown. We undertook this literature sample to track the use of HTE analyses over time, examine the appropriateness of the statistical methods used, and explore the predictors of such analyses.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Articles were selected through a probability sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in <it>Annals of Internal Medicine</it>, <it>BMJ</it>, <it>JAMA</it>, <it>The Lancet</it>, and <it>NEJM </it>during odd numbered months of 1994, 1999, and 2004. RCTs were independently reviewed and coded by two abstractors, with adjudication by a third. Studies were classified as reporting: (1) HTE analysis, utilizing a formal test for heterogeneity or treatment-by-covariate interaction, (2) subgroup analysis only, involving no formal test for heterogeneity or interaction; or (3) neither. Chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression were used to identify variables associated with HTE reporting.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>319 studies were included. Ninety-two (29%) reported HTE analysis; another 88 (28%) reported subgroup analysis only, without examining HTE formally. Major covariates examined included individual risk factors associated with prognosis, responsiveness to treatment, or vulnerability to adverse effects of treatment (56%); gender (30%); age (29%); study site or center (29%); and race/ethnicity (7%). Journal of publication and sample size were significant independent predictors of HTE analysis (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>HTE is frequently ignored or incorrectly analyzed. An iterative process of exploratory analysis followed by confirmatory HTE analysis will generate the data needed to facilitate an individualized approach to evidence-based medicine.</p