Attitude toward second opinions in Germany - a survey of the general population.
General population
Informed decision making
Patient autonomy
Patient preferences
Second opinion
Survey
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jan 2022
15 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
20
07
2021
accepted:
15
12
2021
entrez:
16
1
2022
pubmed:
17
1
2022
medline:
19
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Second medical opinions (SOs) can assist patients in making informed treatment decisions and improve the understanding of their diagnosis. In Germany, there are different approaches to obtain a structured SO procedure: SO programs by health insurers and SOs according to the SO Directive. Through a direct survey of the population, we aimed to assess how structured SOs should be provided to fulfil patients' needs. A stratified sample of 9990 adults (≥18 years) living in the federal states of Berlin and Brandenburg (Germany) were initially contacted by post in April and sent a reminder in May 2020. The survey results were analyzed descriptively. Among 1349 participants (response rate 14%), 56% were female and the median age was 58 years (interquartile range (IQR) 44-69). Participants wanted to be informed directly and personally about the possibility of obtaining an SO (89%; 1201/1349). They preferred to be informed by their physician (93%; 1249/1349). A majority of participants would consider it important to obtain an SO for oncological indications (78%; 1049/1349). Only a subset of the participants would seek an SO via their health insurer or via an online portal (43%; 577/1349 and 16%; 221/1349). A personally delivered SO was the preferred route of SO delivery, as 97% (1305/1349) would (tend to) consider this way of obtaining an SO. Participants were asked to imagine having moderate knee pain for years, resulting in a treatment recommendation for knee joint replacement. They were requested to rate potential qualification criteria for a physician providing the SO. The criteria rated to be most important were experience with the recommended diagnosis/treatment (criterion (very) important for 93%; 1257/1349) and knowledge of the current state of research (criterion (very) important for 86%; 1158/1349). Participants were willing to travel 60 min (median; IQR 60-120) and wait 4 weeks (median; IQR 2-4) for their SO in the hypothetical case of knee pain. In general, SOs were viewed positively. We found that participants have clear preferences regarding SOs. We propose that these preferences should be taken into account in the future design and development of SO programs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Second medical opinions (SOs) can assist patients in making informed treatment decisions and improve the understanding of their diagnosis. In Germany, there are different approaches to obtain a structured SO procedure: SO programs by health insurers and SOs according to the SO Directive. Through a direct survey of the population, we aimed to assess how structured SOs should be provided to fulfil patients' needs.
METHODS
METHODS
A stratified sample of 9990 adults (≥18 years) living in the federal states of Berlin and Brandenburg (Germany) were initially contacted by post in April and sent a reminder in May 2020. The survey results were analyzed descriptively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among 1349 participants (response rate 14%), 56% were female and the median age was 58 years (interquartile range (IQR) 44-69). Participants wanted to be informed directly and personally about the possibility of obtaining an SO (89%; 1201/1349). They preferred to be informed by their physician (93%; 1249/1349). A majority of participants would consider it important to obtain an SO for oncological indications (78%; 1049/1349). Only a subset of the participants would seek an SO via their health insurer or via an online portal (43%; 577/1349 and 16%; 221/1349). A personally delivered SO was the preferred route of SO delivery, as 97% (1305/1349) would (tend to) consider this way of obtaining an SO. Participants were asked to imagine having moderate knee pain for years, resulting in a treatment recommendation for knee joint replacement. They were requested to rate potential qualification criteria for a physician providing the SO. The criteria rated to be most important were experience with the recommended diagnosis/treatment (criterion (very) important for 93%; 1257/1349) and knowledge of the current state of research (criterion (very) important for 86%; 1158/1349). Participants were willing to travel 60 min (median; IQR 60-120) and wait 4 weeks (median; IQR 2-4) for their SO in the hypothetical case of knee pain.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In general, SOs were viewed positively. We found that participants have clear preferences regarding SOs. We propose that these preferences should be taken into account in the future design and development of SO programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35033078
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07422-z
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-07422-z
pmc: PMC8760563
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
76Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Mayo Clin Proc. 2014 May;89(5):687-96
pubmed: 24797646
Gesundheitswesen. 2018 Oct;80(10):859-863
pubmed: 28505704
Lancet. 2004 Jun 12;363(9425):1934-40
pubmed: 15194252
Z Gastroenterol. 2020 Jun;58(6):556-563
pubmed: 32450585
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001 Oct;6(4):195-201
pubmed: 11685782
Med Care. 2016 Oct;54(10):921-8
pubmed: 27213545
BMJ Open. 2021 Feb 10;11(2):e045264
pubmed: 33568378
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018 May;133:46-50
pubmed: 29482914
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2017 Dec 8;6(1):67
pubmed: 29221461
J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10 Suppl 1:6-9
pubmed: 15603595
Oncologist. 2017 Oct;22(10):1197-1211
pubmed: 28606972
Health Expect. 2017 Dec;20(6):1264-1274
pubmed: 28521078
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Feb 1;38(3):E178-84
pubmed: 23138405
Braz J Phys Ther. 2019 Jan - Feb;23(1):1-2
pubmed: 30266561
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Aug 17;18(1):354
pubmed: 28818047
Cancer Invest. 2017 Jan 2;35(1):62-69
pubmed: 27892727
Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Jun;15(3):261-6
pubmed: 12803354
Ann Surg. 1978 Sep;188(3):323-30
pubmed: 686898
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Mar 9;21(1):209
pubmed: 33750368
Am J Med. 2015 Oct;128(10):1138.e25-33
pubmed: 25913850