Dataset Information

Patients' Perspectives on Race and the Use of Race-Based Algorithms in Clinical Decision-Making: a Qualitative Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical algorithms that incorporate race as a modifying factor to guide clinical decision-making have recently been criticized for propagating racial bias in medicine. Equations used to calculate lung or kidney function are examples of clinical algorithms that have different diagnostic parameters depending on an individual's race. While these clinical measures have multiple implications for clinical care, patients' awareness of and their perspectives on the application of such algorithms are unknown.

Objective

To examine patients' perspectives on race and the use of race-based algorithms in clinical decision-making.

Design

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.

Participants

Twenty-three adult patients recruited at a safety-net hospital in Boston, MA.

Approach

Interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis and modified grounded theory.

Key results

Among the 23 study participants, 11 were women and 15 self-identified as Black or African American. Three categories of themes emerged: The first theme described definitions and the individual meanings participants ascribed to the term race. The second theme described perspectives on the role and consideration of race in clinical decision-making. Most study participants were unaware that race has been used as a modifying factor in clinical equations and rejected the incorporation of race in these equations. The third theme related to exposure to and experience of racism in healthcare settings. Experiences described by non-White participants ranged from microaggressions to overt acts of racism, including perceived racist encounters with healthcare providers. In addition, patients alluded to a deep mistrust in the healthcare system as a major barrier to equitable care.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that most patients are unaware of how race has been used to make risk assessments and guide clinical care. Further research on patients' perspectives is needed to inform the development of anti-racist policies and regulatory agendas as we move forward to combat systemic racism in medicine.

SUBMITTER: Schmidt IM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9945816 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patients' Perspectives on Race and the Use of Race-Based Algorithms in Clinical Decision-Making: a Qualitative Study.

Schmidt Insa M IM Shohet Merav M Serrano Mariana M Yadati Pranav P Menn-Josephy Hanni H Ilori Titilayo T Eneanya Nwamaka D ND Cleveland Manchanda Emily C EC Waikar Sushrut S SS

Journal of general internal medicine 20230222 9

<h4>Background</h4>Clinical algorithms that incorporate race as a modifying factor to guide clinical decision-making have recently been criticized for propagating racial bias in medicine. Equations used to calculate lung or kidney function are examples of clinical algorithms that have different diagnostic parameters depending on an individual's race. While these clinical measures have multiple implications for clinical care, patients' awareness of and their perspectives on the application of suc ...[more]

PMID: 36811702

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesHaematological malignancies are the fifth most common cancer in the UK, with chronic subtypes comprising around a third of all new diagnoses. These complex diseases have some similarities with other cancers, but often require different management. Surgical resection is not possible, and while some are curable with intensive chemotherapy, most indolent subtypes are managed with non-aggressive intermittent or continuous treatment, often over many years. Little is known about the views of patients with chronic haematological cancers regarding treatment decision making (TDM), a deficit our study aimed to address.Setting and designSet within the Haematological Malignancy Research Network (HMRN: www.hmrn.org), an ongoing population-based cohort that provides infrastructure to support evidence-based research, HMRN data were augmented by qualitative information from in-depth interviews. Data were analysed for thematic content, combining inductive and deductive approaches. Interpretation involved seeking meaning, salience and connections within data.ParticipantsThirty-five patients with four chronic subtypes: chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and myeloma. Ten relatives were present and contributed to varying extents.ResultsFive themes were discerned: (1) Preference for clinician recommendations; (2) Factors implicated in patient involvement in TDM; (3) Perceptions of proactive/non-proactive approaches to TDM; (4) Experiences of TDM at various points in the disease trajectory; (5) Support from others. Our principal finding relates to a strong preference among interviewees for treatment recommendations from haematologists, based on trust in their expertise and perceptions of empathetic patient-clinician relationships.ConclusionInterviewees wanted to be involved in TDM to varying extents, contingent on complex, inter-related factors, that are dynamic and subject to change according to differing clinical and personal contexts. Patients may benefit from clinicians assessing their shifting preferences for involvement on multiple occasions. Strong preferences for acceptance of recommendations was associated with cancer complexity, trust in clinician expertise and positive perceptions of patient-clinician relationships.

Project description:IntroductionSurgical treatments are being offered to more patients than ever before, and increasingly to high-risk patients (typically multimorbid and over 75). Shared decision making is seen as essential practice. However, little is currently known about what 'good' shared decision making involves nor how it applies in the context of surgery for high-risk patients. This new study aims to identify how high-risk patients, their families and clinical teams negotiate decision making for major surgery.Methods and analysisFocusing on major joint replacement, colorectal and cardiac surgery, we use qualitative methods to explore how patients, their families and clinicians negotiate decision making (including interactional, communicative and informational aspects and the extent to which these are perceived as shared) and reflect back on the decisions they made. Phase 1 involves video recording 15 decision making encounters about major surgery between patients, their carers/families and clinicians; followed by up to 90 interviews (with the same patient, carer and clinician participants) immediately after a decision has been made and again 3-6 months later. Phase 2 involves focus groups with a wider group of (up to 90) patients and (up to 30) clinicians to test out emerging findings and inform development of shared decision making scenarios (3-5 summary descriptions of how decisions are made).Ethics and disseminationThe study forms the first part in a 6-year programme of research, Optimising Shared decision-makIng for high-RIsk major Surgery (OSIRIS). Ethical challenges around involving patients at a challenging time in their lives will be overseen by the programme steering committee, which includes strong patient representation and a lay chair. In addition to academic outputs, we will produce a typology of decision making scenarios for major surgery to feed back to patients, professionals and service providers and inform subsequent work in the OSIRIS programme.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer treatment decisions are typically made among clinical experts in a multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) based on clinical data and guidelines. The rise of artificial intelligence and cultural shifts towards patient autonomy are changing the nature of clinical decision-making towards personalized treatments. This can be supported by clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that generate personalized treatment information as a basis for shared decision-making (SDM). Little is known about lung cancer patients' treatment decisions and the potential for SDM supported by CDSSs. The aim of this study is to understand to what extent SDM is done in current practice and what clinicians need to improve it.ObjectiveTo explore (1) the extent to which patient preferences are taken into consideration in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment decisions; (2) clinician perspectives on using CDSSs to support SDM.DesignMixed methods study consisting of a retrospective cohort study on patient deviation from MTB advice and reasons for deviation, qualitative interviews with lung cancer specialists and observations of MTB discussions and patient consultations.Setting and participantsNSCLC patients (N = 257) treated at a single radiotherapy clinic and nine lung cancer specialists from six Dutch clinics.ResultsWe found a 10.9% (n = 28) deviation rate from MTB advice; 50% (n = 14) were due to patient preference, of which 85.7% (n = 12) chose a less intensive treatment than MTB advice. Current MTB recommendations are based on clinician experience, guidelines and patients' performance status. Most specialists (n = 7) were receptive towards CDSSs but cited barriers, such as lack of trust, lack of validation studies and time. CDSSs were considered valuable during MTB discussions rather than in consultations.ConclusionLung cancer decisions are heavily influenced by clinical guidelines and experience, yet many patients prefer less intensive treatments. CDSSs can support SDM by presenting the harms and benefits of different treatment options rather than giving single treatment advice. External validation of CDSSs should be prioritized.Patient or public contributionThis study did not involve patients or the public explicitly; however, the study design was informed by prior interviews with volunteers of a cancer patient advocacy group. The study objectives and data collection were supported by Dutch health care insurer CZ for a project titled 'My Best Treatment' that improves patient-centeredness and the lung cancer patient pathway in the Netherlands.

Project description:BackgroundGiven that AI-driven decision support systems (AI-DSS) are intended to assist in medical decision making, it is essential that clinicians are willing to incorporate AI-DSS into their practice. This study takes as a case study the use of AI-driven cardiotography (CTG), a type of AI-DSS, in the context of intrapartum care. Focusing on the perspectives of obstetricians and midwives regarding the ethical and trust-related issues of incorporating AI-driven tools in their practice, this paper explores the conditions that AI-driven CTG must fulfill for clinicians to feel justified in incorporating this assistive technology into their decision-making processes regarding interventions in labor.MethodsThis study is based on semi-structured interviews conducted online with eight obstetricians and five midwives based in England. Participants were asked about their current decision-making processes about when to intervene in labor, how AI-driven CTG might enhance or disrupt this process, and what it would take for them to trust this kind of technology. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with thematic analysis. NVivo software was used to organize thematic codes that recurred in interviews to identify the issues that mattered most to participants. Topics and themes that were repeated across interviews were identified to form the basis of the analysis and conclusions of this paper.ResultsThere were four major themes that emerged from our interviews with obstetricians and midwives regarding the conditions that AI-driven CTG must fulfill: (1) the importance of accurate and efficient risk assessments; (2) the capacity for personalization and individualized medicine; (3) the lack of significance regarding the type of institution that develops technology; and (4) the need for transparency in the development process.ConclusionsAccuracy, efficiency, personalization abilities, transparency, and clear evidence that it can improve outcomes are conditions that clinicians deem necessary for AI-DSS to meet in order to be considered reliable and therefore worthy of being incorporated into the decision-making process. Importantly, healthcare professionals considered themselves as the epistemic authorities in the clinical context and the bearers of responsibility for delivering appropriate care. Therefore, what mattered to them was being able to evaluate the reliability of AI-DSS on their own terms, and have confidence in implementing them in their practice.

Project description:BackgroundWork participation is an important determinant of public health; being unemployed leads to a decrease in an individual's health. In the Netherlands, people with a work disability can apply for disability benefits, in which people also receive support to return to work (RTW). A method, currently used in the medical sector, that can include both the perspective of the reintegration professional and of the individual in the process of RTW, is shared decision making (SDM). In this article we explore to what extent reintegration professionals currently use SDM, and to what extent they prefer to use SDM in their ideal interaction with clients.MethodsWe performed semi-structured interviews with fourteen reintegration professionals from four different municipalities. The transcripts were coded according to content analysis, applying open and axial coding.ResultsReintegration professionals emphasised the importance of having a good relationship with clients, of building trust and collaborating as a team. They did not inform their clients that they could be part of the decision-making process, or discussed a shared goal. Although professionals did emphasise the importance of aligning their approach with the preferences of the client and though they tried to offer some choice options, they did not mention available options, discussed the pros and cons of these options or evaluated decisions with their clients. Furthermore, they did not mention any of these aspects in their ideal interaction with clients.ConclusionsSDM has a potential value, because all professionals underline the importance of having an alliance with clients, collaborating as a team, and striving to align their approach with the preferences of the client. However, professionals currently perform a limited set of SDM steps. Additional knowledge and skills are needed for both reintegration professionals and municipalities so that professionals can consider and reflect on the value of using SDM, or SDM steps, in supporting RTW. Providing clients with knowledge and skills seems necessary to facilitate both self-management and SDM.

Dataset Information

Patients' Perspectives on Race and the Use of Race-Based Algorithms in Clinical Decision-Making: a Qualitative Study.

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Approach

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

Patients' Perspectives on Race and the Use of Race-Based Algorithms in Clinical Decision-Making: a Qualitative Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets