Opioids for Osteoarthritis: Cross-Sectional Survey of Patient Perspectives and Satisfaction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schnitzer TJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10095440 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Opioids for Osteoarthritis: Cross-Sectional Survey of Patient Perspectives and Satisfaction.
Schnitzer Thomas J TJ Robinson Rebecca L RL Viktrup Lars L Cappelleri Joseph C JC Bushmakin Andrew G AG Tive Leslie L Berry Mia M Walker Chloe C Jackson James J
Journal of clinical medicine 20230406 7
Patients often take opioids to relieve osteoarthritis (OA) pain despite limited benefits and potential harms. This study aimed to compare cross-sectional perspectives of patients that were taking prescription opioid (N = 471) or nonopioid medications (N = 185) for OA in terms of satisfaction, expectations of effectiveness, and concerns. Patients prescribed opioids (>7 days) reported more prior treatments (2.47 vs. 1.74), greater mean pain intensity (5.47 vs. 4.11), and worse quality of life (EQ- ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe application of artificial intelligence (AI) to health and health care is rapidly increasing. Several studies have assessed the attitudes of health professionals, but far fewer studies have explored the perspectives of patients or the general public. Studies investigating patient perspectives have focused on somatic issues, including those related to radiology, perinatal health, and general applications. Patient feedback has been elicited in the development of specific mental health care solutions, but broader perspectives toward AI for mental health care have been underexplored.ObjectiveThis study aims to understand public perceptions regarding potential benefits of AI, concerns about AI, comfort with AI accomplishing various tasks, and values related to AI, all pertaining to mental health care.MethodsWe conducted a 1-time cross-sectional survey with a nationally representative sample of 500 US-based adults. Participants provided structured responses on their perceived benefits, concerns, comfort, and values regarding AI for mental health care. They could also add free-text responses to elaborate on their concerns and values.ResultsA plurality of participants (245/497, 49.3%) believed AI may be beneficial for mental health care, but this perspective differed based on sociodemographic variables (all P<.05). Specifically, Black participants (odds ratio [OR] 1.76, 95% CI 1.03-3.05) and those with lower health literacy (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.29-3.78) perceived AI to be more beneficial, and women (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-0.99) perceived AI to be less beneficial. Participants endorsed concerns about accuracy, possible unintended consequences such as misdiagnosis, the confidentiality of their information, and the loss of connection with their health professional when AI is used for mental health care. A majority of participants (80.4%, 402/500) valued being able to understand individual factors driving their risk, confidentiality, and autonomy as it pertained to the use of AI for their mental health. When asked who was responsible for the misdiagnosis of mental health conditions using AI, 81.6% (408/500) of participants found the health professional to be responsible. Qualitative results revealed similar concerns related to the accuracy of AI and how its use may impact the confidentiality of patients' information.ConclusionsFuture work involving the use of AI for mental health care should investigate strategies for conveying the level of AI's accuracy, factors that drive patients' mental health risks, and how data are used confidentially so that patients can determine with their health professionals when AI may be beneficial. It will also be important in a mental health care context to ensure the patient-health professional relationship is preserved when AI is used.
| S-EPMC11447436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study examines the association between profession-specific work environments and the 7-day mortality of patients admitted to these units with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke and hip fracture.DesignA cross-sectional study combining patient mortality data extracted from the South-Eastern Norway Health Region, and the work environment scores at the hospital ward levels. A case-mix adjustment model was developed for the comparison between hospital wards.SettingFifty-six patient wards in 20 hospitals administered by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority.ParticipantsIn total, 46 026 patients admitted to hospitals with AMI, stroke and hip fracture, and supported by 8800 survey responses from physicians, nurses and managers over a 3-year period (2010-2012).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measures were the associations between the relative mortality rate for patients admitted with AMI, stroke and hip fractures and the profession-specific (ie, nurses, physicians, middle managers) mean scores on the 19 organisational factors in a validated cross sectional, staff survey conducted annually in Norway. The secondary outcome measures were the mean scores with SD on the organisational factors in the staff survey reported by each profession.ResultsThe Nurse workload (beta 0.019 (95% CI0.009-0.028)) and middle manager engagement (beta 0.024 (95% CI0.010-0.037)) levels were associated with a case-mix adjusted 7-day patient mortality rates. There was no significant association between physician work environment scores and patient mortality rates.Conclusion7-day mortality rates in hospital wards were negatively correlated with the nurse workload and manager engagement levels. A deeper understanding of the relationships between patient outcomes, organisational structure and their underlying cultural barriers is needed because they may provide a better understanding of the harm and death risks for patients due to organisational characteristics.
| S-EPMC6924769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The association between patient satisfaction and survey response is only partly understood. In this study, we describe the association between average satisfaction and survey response rate across hospital surveys, and model the association between satisfaction and propensity to respond for individual patients. METHODS:Secondary analysis of patient responses (166'014 respondents) and of average satisfaction scores and response rates obtained in 717 annual patient satisfaction surveys conducted between 2011 and 2015 at 164 Swiss hospitals. The satisfaction score was the average of 5 items scored between 0 and 10. The association between satisfaction and response propensity in individuals was modeled as the function that predicted best the observed response rates across surveys. RESULTS:Among the 717 surveys, response rates ranged from 16.1 to 80.0% (pooled average 49.8%), and average satisfaction scores ranged from 8.36 to 9.79 (pooled mean 9.15). At the survey level, the mean satisfaction score and response rate were correlated (r = 0.61). This correlation held for all subgroups of surveys, except for the 5 large university hospitals. The estimated individual response propensity function was "J-shaped": the probability of responding was lowest (around 20%) for satisfaction scores between 3 and 7, increased sharply to about 70% for those maximally satisfied, and increased slightly for the least satisfied. Average satisfaction scores projected for 100% participation were lower than observed average scores. CONCLUSIONS:The most satisfied patients were the most likely to participate in a post-hospitalization satisfaction survey. This tendency produces an upward bias in observed satisfaction scores, and a positive correlation between average satisfaction and response rate across surveys.
| S-EPMC7052977 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile the lung cancer (LC) treatment landscape has rapidly evolved in recent years, easing symptom burden and treatment side effects remain central considerations in disease control.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the relative importance of dimensions of LC care to patients, and to explore the disease burden, including socioeconomic aspects not commonly covered in patient-reported outcomes instruments.MethodsA questionnaire was sent to patients with LC and their caregivers to rate the value of a diverse set of quality of life dimensions in care, to evaluate communication between health care professionals (HCPs) and patients, and to explore the economic impact on respondents. The survey included questions on the dimensions of care covered by patient-reported outcomes instruments for quality-of-life evaluation (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung scale, EQ-5D, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Core Quality of Life questionnaire, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Core Quality of Life in lung cancer 13-item questionnaire), as well as the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard set of patient-centered outcomes for LC. The survey respondents were participants on Carenity's patient community platform, living either in France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, or Spain.ResultsThe survey included 150 respondents (115 patients and 35 caregivers). "Physical well-being" and "end-of-life care" (median scores of 9.6, IQR 7.7-10, and 9.7, IQR 8.0-10, on a 10-point scale) were rated highest among the different value dimensions assessed. "Physical well-being and functioning" was the dimension most frequently discussed with health care professionals (82/150, 55%), while only (17/100, 17%) reported discussing "end-of-life care." After diagnosis, 43% (49/112) of patients younger than 65 years stopped working. Among respondents who indicated their monthly household income before and after diagnosis, 55% (38/69) reported a loss of income.ConclusionsOur results showed the relevance of a broad range of aspects of care for the quality of life of patients with LC. End-of-life care was the dimension of care rated highest by patients with LC, irrespective of stage at diagnosis; however, this aspect is least frequently discussed with HCPs. The results also highlight the considerable socioeconomic impact of the disease, despite insurance coverage of direct costs.
| S-EPMC9912155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSatisfaction with medications prescribed for osteoarthritis (OA) varies; this study aimed to determine the factors associated with satisfaction in US patients and their physicians.MethodsThis point-in-time study used the Adelphi OA Disease Specific Programme (physicians identified from public lists reported on nine consecutive patients diagnosed with OA [any joint]: physicians and patients completed questionnaires). Patient's demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics associated with patient-reported and physician-rated overall satisfaction with, and expectations of effectiveness of, medication for OA were assessed using multivariate linear regression.ResultsResponses from 572 patients (mean age 64.9 years, 60.5% female) currently prescribed medication for OA and 153 physicians (81 primary care, 35 rheumatologists, 37 orthopedic surgeons) were analyzed. Pain intensity was moderate or severe for 59.4% of patients. Greater patient-reported overall satisfaction with medication was significantly associated with (standardized beta, 95% confidence interval) exercise (0.12, 0.03-0.20), comorbid other musculoskeletal or painful conditions (vs none) (0.15, 0.06-0.24), and physicians' report that the best control had been achieved (0.12, 0.03-0.20); lack of efficacy was among factors associated with worse satisfaction. Greater patient-reported expectation of effectiveness was significantly associated with exercise (0.12, 0.03-0.21) and the most troublesome joint not being a knee, hip, or their back (0.08, 0.01-0.14). Greater physician-rated overall satisfaction with medication was significantly associated with their report that the best control had been achieved (0.18, 0.11-0.26), the most troublesome joint being a knee (0.08, 0.01-0.14), comorbid other musculoskeletal or painful conditions (0.07, 0.01-0.12), obesity (0.06, 0.00-0.11), and female patients (0.06, 0.00-0.11); lack of efficacy and adverse events/tolerability issues were among factors associated with worse satisfaction. For physicians, their report that the best control had been achieved (0.19, 0.11-0.27), the most troublesome joint being a knee (0.08, 0.00-0.15), improving (vs stable) OA (0.15, 0.07-0.24), and uncertain duration of OA (0.11, 0.02-0.21) were associated with greater perception that the medication was meeting patients' efficacy expectations.ConclusionAlthough efficacy was strongly associated with both patients' and physicians' satisfaction with medication, other factors were also important, including exercise (for patients), tolerability (for physicians), and knee OA (for physicians).
| S-EPMC8861239 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThere is increasing awareness of the burden of medical care experienced by those with multimorbidity. There is also increasing interest and activity in engaging patients with chronic disease in technology-based health-related activities ('eHealth') in family practice. Little is known about patients' access to, and interest in eHealth, in particular those with a higher burden of care associated with multimorbidity. We examined access and attitudes towards eHealth among patients attending family medicine clinics with a focus on older adults and those with polypharmacy as a marker for multimorbidity.DesignCross-sectional survey of consecutive adult patients attending consultations with family physicians in the McMaster University Sentinel and Information Collaboration practice-based research network. We used univariate and multivariate analyses for quantitative data, and thematic analysis for free text responses.SettingPrimary care clinics.Participants693 patients participated (response rate 70%).Inclusion criteriaAttending primary care clinic.ExclusionsToo ill to complete survey, cannot speak English.ResultsThe majority of participants reported access to the internet at home, although this decreased with age. Participants 70 years and older were less comfortable using the internet compared with participants under 70. Univariate analyses showed age, multimorbidity, home internet access, comfort using the internet, privacy concerns and self-rated health all predicted significantly less interest in eHealth. In the multivariate analysis, home internet access and multimorbidity were significant predictors of disinterest in eHealth. Privacy and loss of relational connection were themes in the qualitative analysis.ConclusionThere is a significant negative association between multimorbidity and interest in eHealth. This is independent of age, computer use and comfort with using the internet. These findings have important implications, particularly the potential to further increase health inequity.
| S-EPMC6377536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To improve access to primary care in underserved communities, we established a hybrid model of delivering team-based, comprehensive primary care using both in-person and virtual care options with family physician leadership. Using a cross-sectional online survey (n = 121), results showed high levels (90%) of patient satisfaction. Our findings suggest that a similar hybrid model for primary care delivery can provide levels of patient satisfaction comparable to traditional in-person models of primary care. This can be achieved regardless of whether patients had previously been attached to the same family physician before receiving care through the hybrid model.Annals "Online First" article.
| S-EPMC10365871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients are increasingly seeking Web-based symptom checkers to obtain diagnoses. However, little is known about the characteristics of the patients who use these resources, their rationale for use, and whether they find them accurate and useful.ObjectiveThe study aimed to examine patients' experiences using an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted online symptom checker.MethodsAn online survey was administered between March 2, 2018, through March 15, 2018, to US users of the Isabel Symptom Checker within 6 months of their use. User characteristics, experiences of symptom checker use, experiences discussing results with physicians, and prior personal history of experiencing a diagnostic error were collected.ResultsA total of 329 usable responses was obtained. The mean respondent age was 48.0 (SD 16.7) years; most were women (230/304, 75.7%) and white (271/304, 89.1%). Patients most commonly used the symptom checker to better understand the causes of their symptoms (232/304, 76.3%), followed by for deciding whether to seek care (101/304, 33.2%) or where (eg, primary or urgent care: 63/304, 20.7%), obtaining medical advice without going to a doctor (48/304, 15.8%), and understanding their diagnoses better (39/304, 12.8%). Most patients reported receiving useful information for their health problems (274/304, 90.1%), with half reporting positive health effects (154/302, 51.0%). Most patients perceived it to be useful as a diagnostic tool (253/301, 84.1%), as a tool providing insights leading them closer to correct diagnoses (231/303, 76.2%), and reported they would use it again (278/304, 91.4%). Patients who discussed findings with their physicians (103/213, 48.4%) more often felt physicians were interested (42/103, 40.8%) than not interested in learning about the tool's results (24/103, 23.3%) and more often felt physicians were open (62/103, 60.2%) than not open (21/103, 20.4%) to discussing the results. Compared with patients who had not previously experienced diagnostic errors (missed or delayed diagnoses: 123/304, 40.5%), patients who had previously experienced diagnostic errors (181/304, 59.5%) were more likely to use the symptom checker to determine where they should seek care (15/123, 12.2% vs 48/181, 26.5%; P=.002), but they less often felt that physicians were interested in discussing the tool's results (20/34, 59% vs 22/69, 32%; P=.04).ConclusionsDespite ongoing concerns about symptom checker accuracy, a large patient-user group perceived an AI-assisted symptom checker as useful for diagnosis. Formal validation studies evaluating symptom checker accuracy and effectiveness in real-world practice could provide additional useful information about their benefit.
| S-EPMC7055765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProfessional societies have recommended against use of self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (NITT2D) to control blood sugar levels, but patients are still monitoring.ObjectiveTo understand patients' motivation to monitor their blood sugar, and whether they would stop if their physician suggested it.DesignCross-sectional in-person and electronic survey conducted between 2018 and 2020.ParticipantsAdults with type 2 diabetes not using insulin who self-monitor their blood sugar.Main measuresThe survey included questions about frequency and reason for using SMBG, and the impact of SMBG on quality of life and worry. It also asked, "If your doctor said you could stop checking your blood sugar, would you?" We categorized patients based on whether they would stop. To identify the characteristics independently associated with desire to stop SMBG, we performed a logistic regression using backward stepwise selection.Key resultsWe received 458 responses. The common reasons for using SMBG included the doctor wanted the patient to check (67%), desire to see the number (65%), and desire to see if their medications were working (61%). Forty-eight percent of respondents stated that using SMBG reduced their worry about their diabetes and 61% said it increased their quality of life. Fifty percent would stop using SMBG if given permission. In the regression model, respondents who said that they check their blood sugar levels because "I was told to" were more likely to want to stop (AOR: 1.69, 95%CI: 1.11, 2.58). Those that used SMBG due to habit and to understand their diabetes better had lower odds of wanting to stop (AOR: 0.33, 95%CI: 0.18-0.62; AOR: 0.60, 95%CI: 0.39-0.93, respectively).ConclusionsPrimary care physicians should discuss patients' reasons for using SMBG and offer them the option of discontinuing.
| S-EPMC9130377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaginal pessaries are a common method of managing pelvic organ prolapse (POP), as well as different types of urinary incontinence, allowing patients to successfully improve overall quality of life. Yet despite their positive attributes, there are several reasons why patients may choose to discontinue using pessaries and proceed with surgery to treat their condition instead. This study aimed to explore patients' experiences of pessary use in treating POP.MethodsParticipants completed an online survey regarding pessary use and ideal characteristics of a pessary. Participants were recruited from social media advertisements, online support groups for women's health-related conditions, and pelvic floor clinics.ResultsA total of 100 participants were recruited, of which 77 fully completed the survey. The biggest age group of participants was above 65 years, with 48.1% of participants falling into this category, followed by 35-44 years accounting for 20.8% of respondents. Respondents cited pelvic pain (35.2%), excess vaginal discharge and odor (32.4%), as well as difficulty with pessary placement as the most common issues related to pessary use (41.9%). Easy insertion, removal (81.8%), and relief from side effects (81.8%) were the most commonly reported ideal characteristics for pessary use.ConclusionPatients had important concerns with pessary use and a high number either stopped or were considering stopping even when it improved their POP. Whilst pessaries can help in the management of POP, further improvement is warranted to increase pessary use, such as through the development of user-friendly designs, or applicators to aid with fitting.
| S-EPMC11665120 | biostudies-literature