Understanding how patients (vs physicians) approach the decision to escalate treatment: A proposed conceptual model

Rheumatology (United Kingdom)

Volumn 54, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 278-285

  Fraenkel, Liana ^a,b   Seng, Elizabeth K ^c   Cunningham, Meaghan ^a   Mattocks, Kristin ^d  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b VA CONNECTICUT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^c YESHIVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d North Hampton ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Patient preference; Quality of care; Rheumatoid arthritis; Treat to target

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CAUCASIAN; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE ACTIVITY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; GROUNDED THEORY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RISK FACTOR; SOCIAL INTERACTION; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMBINATION DRUG THERAPY; DECISION MAKING; DRUG SUBSTITUTION; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOLOGY; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENT; BIOLOGICAL FACTOR;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENTS; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; BIOLOGICAL FACTORS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG SUBSTITUTION; DRUG THERAPY, COMBINATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85005808059     PISSN: 14620324     EISSN: 14620332     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keu324     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Singh JA, Furst DE, Bharat A et al. 2012 update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:625–39.
2. Fraenkel L, Cunningham M. High disease activity may not be sufficient to escalate care. Arthritis Care Res 2014;66: 197–203.
3. Harrold LR, Harrington JT, Curtis JR et al. Prescribing practices in a US cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients before and after publication of the American College of Rheumatology treatment recommendations. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:630–8.
4. van Hulst LTC, Kievit W, van Bommel R, van Riel PLCM, Fraenkel L. Rheumatoid arthritis patients and rheumatologists approach the decision to escalate care differently: results of a maximum difference scaling experiment. Arthritis Care Res 2011;63:1407–14.
5. Aikens JE, Piette JD. Diabetic patients' medication underuse, illness outcomes, and beliefs about antihyperglycemic and antihypertensive treatments. Diabetes Care 2009;32:19–24.
6. Mann DM, Ponieman D, Leventhal H, Halm EA. Predictors of adherence to diabetes medications: the role of disease and medication beliefs. J Behav Med 2009;32: 278–84.
7. Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Brownlee S, Leventhal EA. Cholesterol control, medication adherence and illness cognition. Br J Health Psychol 2002;7:433–47.
8. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Resistance of rheumatoid arthritis patients to changing therapy: discordance between disease activity and patients' treatment choices. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56:2135–42.
9. Harte JM, Koele P. A comparison of different methods for the elicitation of attribute weights: structural modeling, process tracing, and self-reports. Organ Behav Hum Dec Proc 1995;64:49–64.
10. Glaser B. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1992.
11. Fraenkel L, Bogardus S, Wittink DR. Understanding patient preferences for the treatment of lupus nephritis with adaptive conjoint analysis. Med Care 2001;39: 1203–16.
12. Hawley ST, Volk RJ, Krishnamurthy P et al. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients. Med Care 2008;46:S10–6.
13. Phillips KA, Maddala T, Johnson FR. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002;37: 1681–705.
14. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000;320:1530–3.
15. Green PE, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issue and outlook. J Consumer Res 1978;5: 102–23.
16. Sawtooth Software. The ACA/Web v6.0 Technical Paper 2007. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/tech-nical-papers/aca-related-papers/aca-technical-paper-2007 (19 May 2014, date last accessed).
17. Fraenkel L, Peters E, Charpentier P et al. Decision tool to improve the quality of care in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:977–85.
18. Dougados M, Nataf H, Steinberg G, Rouanet S, Falissard B. Relative importance of doctor-reported outcomes vs patient-reported outcomes in DMARD intensification for rheumatoid arthritis: the DUO study. Rheumatology 2013;52:391–9.
19. Khan NA, Spencer HJ, Abda E et al. Determinants of discordance in patients' and physicians' rating of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64: 206–14.
20. van Hulst LTC, Hulscher MEJL, van Riel PLCM. Achieving tight control in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2011; 50:1729–31.
21. Adair R, Wholey DR, Christianson J et al. Improving chronic disease care by adding laypersons to the primary care team: a parallel randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:176–84.
22. Doherty RB, Crowley RA. Principles supporting dynamic clinical care teams: an American College of Physicians position paper. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:620–6.