7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Sharing online clinical notes with patients: implications for nocebo effects and health equity

      Journal of Medical Ethics
      BMJ

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Patients in around 20 countries worldwide are now offered online access to at least some of their medical records. Access includes test results, medication lists, referral information, and/or the very words written by clinicians (so-called ‘open notes’). In this paper, I discuss the possibility of one unintended negative consequence of patient access to their clinical notes—the potential to increase ‘nocebo effects’. A growing body of research shows that nocebo effects arise by engaging perceptual and cognitive processes that influence negative expectancies, and as a consequence, adverse health effects. Studies show that increased awareness about the side effects of medications, the framing of information and the socioemotional context of care can increase the risk of nocebo effects. Connecting research into the nocebo effect with open notes provides preliminary support for the hypothesis that patient access to clinical notes might be a forum for facilitating unwanted nocebo effects. Furthermore, current findings indicate that we might expect to see systematic differences in how nocebo effects are experienced among different patient populations. The ethical implications of the tension between transparency and the potential for harm are discussed, with an emphasis on what open notes might mean for justice and equity in clinical care for a range of already marginalised patient populations. I argue that to resolve these challenges does not thereby justify ‘closed notes’, and conclude with suggestions for how health systems and clinicians might adapt to this innovation to reduce the risk of potential nocebo effects arising via this novel route.

          Related collections

          Most cited references103

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review

          Background Implicit biases involve associations outside conscious awareness that lead to a negative evaluation of a person on the basis of irrelevant characteristics such as race or gender. This review examines the evidence that healthcare professionals display implicit biases towards patients. Methods PubMed, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLE and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1st March 2003 and 31st March 2013. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of the identified papers based on precise content and quality criteria. The references of eligible papers were examined to identify further eligible studies. Results Forty two articles were identified as eligible. Seventeen used an implicit measure (Implicit Association Test in fifteen and subliminal priming in two), to test the biases of healthcare professionals. Twenty five articles employed a between-subjects design, using vignettes to examine the influence of patient characteristics on healthcare professionals’ attitudes, diagnoses, and treatment decisions. The second method was included although it does not isolate implicit attitudes because it is recognised by psychologists who specialise in implicit cognition as a way of detecting the possible presence of implicit bias. Twenty seven studies examined racial/ethnic biases; ten other biases were investigated, including gender, age and weight. Thirty five articles found evidence of implicit bias in healthcare professionals; all the studies that investigated correlations found a significant positive relationship between level of implicit bias and lower quality of care. Discussion The evidence indicates that healthcare professionals exhibit the same levels of implicit bias as the wider population. The interactions between multiple patient characteristics and between healthcare professional and patient characteristics reveal the complexity of the phenomenon of implicit bias and its influence on clinician-patient interaction. The most convincing studies from our review are those that combine the IAT and a method measuring the quality of treatment in the actual world. Correlational evidence indicates that biases are likely to influence diagnosis and treatment decisions and levels of care in some circumstances and need to be further investigated. Our review also indicates that there may sometimes be a gap between the norm of impartiality and the extent to which it is embraced by healthcare professionals for some of the tested characteristics. Conclusions Our findings highlight the need for the healthcare profession to address the role of implicit biases in disparities in healthcare. More research in actual care settings and a greater homogeneity in methods employed to test implicit biases in healthcare is needed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Stigma among health professionals towards patients with substance use disorders and its consequences for healthcare delivery: systematic review.

            Healthcare professionals are crucial in the identification and accessibility to treatment for people with substance use disorders. Our objective was to assess health professionals' attitudes towards patients with substance use disorders and examine the consequences of these attitudes on healthcare delivery for these patients in Western countries. Pubmed, PsycINFO and Embase were systematically searched for articles published between 2000 and 2011. Studies evaluating health professionals' attitudes towards patients with substance use disorders and consequences of negative attitudes were included. An inclusion criterion was that studies addressed alcohol or illicit drug abuse. Reviews, commentaries and letters were excluded, as were studies originating from non-Western countries. The search process yielded 1562 citations. After selection and quality assessment, 28 studies were included. Health professionals generally had a negative attitude towards patients with substance use disorders. They perceived violence, manipulation, and poor motivation as impeding factors in the healthcare delivery for these patients. Health professionals also lacked adequate education, training and support structures in working with this patient group. Negative attitudes of health professionals diminished patients' feelings of empowerment and subsequent treatment outcomes. Health professionals are less involved and have a more task-oriented approach in the delivery of healthcare, resulting in less personal engagement and diminished empathy. This review indicates that negative attitudes of health professionals towards patients with substance use disorders are common and contribute to suboptimal health care for these patients. However, few studies have evaluated the consequences of health professionals' negative attitudes towards patients with substance use disorders. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Race, gender, and partnership in the patient-physician relationship.

              Many studies have documented race and gender differences in health care received by patients. However, few studies have related differences in the quality of interpersonal care to patient and physician race and gender. To describe how the race/ethnicity and gender of patients and physicians are associated with physicians' participatory decision-making (PDM) styles. Telephone survey conducted between November 1996 and June 1998 of 1816 adults aged 18 to 65 years (mean age, 41 years) who had recently attended 1 of 32 primary care practices associated with a large mixed-model managed care organization in an urban setting. Sixty-six percent of patients surveyed were female, 43% were white, and 45% were African American. The physician sample (n = 64) was 63% male, with 56% white, and 25% African American. Patients' ratings of their physicians' PDM style on a 100-point scale. African American patients rated their visits as significantly less participatory than whites in models adjusting for patient age, gender, education, marital status, health status, and length of the patient-physician relationship (mean [SE] PDM score, 58.0 [1.2] vs 60.6 [3.3]; P = .03). Ratings of minority and white physicians did not differ with respect to PDM style (adjusted mean [SE] PDM score for African Americans, 59.2 [1.7] vs whites, 61.7 [3.1]; P = .13). Patients in race-concordant relationships with their physicians rated their visits as significantly more participatory than patients in race-discordant relationships (difference [SE], 2.6 [1.1]; P = .02). Patients of female physicians had more participatory visits (adjusted mean [SE] PDM score for female, 62.4 [1.3] vs male, 59.5 [3.1]; P = .03), but gender concordance between physicians and patients was not significantly related to PDM score (unadjusted mean [SE] PDM score, 76.0 [1.0] for concordant vs 74.5 [0.9] for discordant; P = .12). Patient satisfaction was highly associated with PDM score within all race/ethnicity groups. Our data suggest that African American patients rate their visits with physicians as less participatory than whites. However, patients seeing physicians of their own race rate their physicians' decision-making styles as more participatory. Improving cross-cultural communication between primary care physicians and patients and providing patients with access to a diverse group of physicians may lead to more patient involvement in care, higher levels of patient satisfaction, and better health outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Medical Ethics
                J Med Ethics
                BMJ
                0306-6800
                1473-4257
                August 02 2022
                : medethics-2022-108413
                Article
                10.1136/jme-2022-108413
                ab8165d7-f004-41ee-a249-42fc21ff66e7
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article