4 resultados para healthcare provider discrimination
em Duke University
Resumo:
This study explores patients’ needs in rural Thanjavur, southern India through understanding how people with diabetes choose providers and perceive care-seeking experience. To measure perception, the study surveyed people regarding six common barriers to care-seeking behavior, selected from both literature and local expert interview. Ninety-one percent of the sampled population goes to public or private allopathic providers out of the six presented providers. The low socioeconomic group and people with more complications or comorbidities are more likely to go to private allopathic providers. What is more, there is no difference between public and private allopathic providers in patients’ perception of care except for perceived cost. Positive perceptions in both providers are very common except for perceptions in blood-sugar management, distance to facilities, and cost of care. Sixty-six percent of patients perceived their blood-sugar control to fluctuate or have no change versus improved control. Twenty-seven percent of patients perceived the distance to facilities as unreasonable, and sixty-two percent of patients perceived the cost as high for them. The results suggest that cost may affect low socioeconomic people’s choice of care significantly. However, for people in middle and higher socioeconomic groups, cost does not appear to be a major factor. For qualitative text analyses, physician’s behavior and reputation emerge as themes, which require further studies.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to: 1) describe patient-reported communication with their provider and explore differences in perceptions of racially diverse adherent versus nonadherent patients; and 2) examine whether the association between unanswered questions and patient-reported medication nonadherence varied as a function of patients' race. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of baseline in-person survey data from a trial designed to improve postmyocardial infarction management of cardiovascular disease risk factors. RESULTS: Overall, 298 patients (74%) reported never leaving their doctor's office with unanswered questions. Among those who were adherent and nonadherent with their medications, 183 (79%) and 115 (67%) patients, respectively, never left their doctor's office with unanswered questions. In multivariable logistic regression, although the simple effects of the interaction term were different for patients of nonminority race (odds ratio [OR]: 2.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-3.92) and those of minority race (OR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.54-2.66), the overall interaction effect was not statistically significant (P=0.24). CONCLUSION: The quality of patient-provider communication is critical for cardiovascular disease medication adherence. In this study, however, having unanswered questions did not impact medication adherence differently as a function of patients' race. Nevertheless, there were racial differences in medication adherence that may need to be addressed to ensure optimal adherence and health outcomes. Effort should be made to provide training opportunities for both patients and their providers to ensure strong communication skills and to address potential differences in medication adherence in patients of diverse backgrounds.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Risk assessment with a thorough family health history is recommended by numerous organizations and is now a required component of the annual physical for Medicare beneficiaries under the Affordable Care Act. However, there are several barriers to incorporating robust risk assessments into routine care. MeTree, a web-based patient-facing health risk assessment tool, was developed with the aim of overcoming these barriers. In order to better understand what factors will be instrumental for broader adoption of risk assessment programs like MeTree in clinical settings, we obtained funding to perform a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness study in primary care clinics at five diverse healthcare systems. Here, we describe the study's protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: MeTree collects personal medical information and a three-generation family health history from patients on 98 conditions. Using algorithms built entirely from current clinical guidelines, it provides clinical decision support to providers and patients on 30 conditions. All adult patients with an upcoming well-visit appointment at one of the 20 intervention clinics are eligible to participate. Patient-oriented risk reports are provided in real time. Provider-oriented risk reports are uploaded to the electronic medical record for review at the time of the appointment. Implementation outcomes are enrollment rate of clinics, providers, and patients (enrolled vs approached) and their representativeness compared to the underlying population. Primary effectiveness outcomes are the percent of participants newly identified as being at increased risk for one of the clinical decision support conditions and the percent with appropriate risk-based screening. Secondary outcomes include percent change in those meeting goals for a healthy lifestyle (diet, exercise, and smoking). Outcomes are measured through electronic medical record data abstraction, patient surveys, and surveys/qualitative interviews of clinical staff. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates factors that are critical to successful implementation of a web-based risk assessment tool into routine clinical care in a variety of healthcare settings. The result will identify resource needs and potential barriers and solutions to implementation in each setting as well as an understanding potential effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01956773.