Case Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Recommendations by Hearing Care Professionals

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (03) ◽  
pp. 229-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmine Gioia ◽  
Moshe Ben-Akiva ◽  
Matilde Kirkegaard ◽  
Ole Jørgensen ◽  
Kasper Jensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Outcome ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Treatment Recommendation ◽  
Significant Variable ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Optimal Patient Outcome ◽  
Active Patient ◽  
Technology Level

Background: Professional recommendations to patients concerning hearing instrument (HI) technology levels are not currently evidence-based. Pre-fitting parameters have not been proven to be the primary indicators for optimal patient outcome with different HI technology levels. This results in subjective decision-making as regards the technology level recommendation made by professionals. Purpose: The objective of this study is to gain insight into the decision-making criteria utilized by professionals when recommending HI technology levels to hearing-impaired patients. Research Design: A set of patient variables (and their respective levels) was identified by professionals as determinant for their recommendation of HIs. An experimental design was developed and 21 representative patient cases were generated. The design was based on a contrastive vignette technique according to which different types of vignettes (patient cases) were randomly presented to respondents in an online survey. Based on these patient cases, professionals were asked in the survey to make a treatment recommendation. Study Sample: The online survey was sent to approximately 3,500 professionals from the US, Germany, France, and Italy. The professionals were randomly selected from the databases of Oticon sales companies. The manufacturer sponsoring the survey remained anonymous and was only revealed after completing the survey, if requested by the respondent. The response rate was 20.5%. Data Collection and Analysis: Data comprised of respondent descriptions and patient case recommendations that were collected from the online survey. A binary logit modeling approach was used to identify the variables that discriminate between the respondents' recommendations of HI technology levels. Results: The results show that HI technology levels are recommended by professionals based on their perception of the patient's activity level in life, the level of HI usage for experienced users, their age, and their speech discrimination score. Surprisingly, the patient's lifestyle as perceived by the hearing care professional, followed by speech discrimination, were the strongest factors in explaining treatment recommendation. An active patient with poor speech discrimination had a 17% chance of being recommended the highest technology level HI. For a very active patient with good speech discrimination, the probability increases to 68%. Conclusions: The discrepancies in HI technology level recommendations are not justified by academic research or evidence of optimal patient outcome with a different HI technology level. The paradigm of lifestyle as the significant variable identified in this study is apparently deeply anchored in the mindset of the professional despite the lack of supporting evidence. These results call for a shift in the professional's technology level recommendation practice, from nonevidence-based to a proven practice that can maximize patient outcome.

scholarly journals Surgeon Applications of Patient Preferences in Treatment Decision Making for First-Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 232596712096614
Author(s):  
Brian C. Lau ◽  
Carolyn A. Hutyra ◽  
Benjamin Streufert ◽  
Shelby D. Reed ◽  
Lori A. Orlando ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Shoulder Dislocation ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Treatment Recommendation ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Dislocation ◽  
Clinical Variables ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
First Time

Background: Treatment of a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD) is sensitive to patient preferences. The operative or nonoperative management debate provides an excellent opportunity to learn how surgeons apply patient preferences in treatment decisions. Purpose: To determine how patient preferences (repeat dislocation risk, recovery difficulties, fear of surgery, treatment costs) and surgeon factors influence a surgeon’s treatment plan for FTASD. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Eight clinical vignettes of hypothetical patients with FTASD (including age, sex, and activity level) were presented to members of the Magellan Society. A second set of matched vignettes with patient preferences and clinical variables were also presented. The vignettes represented scenarios in which evidence does not favor one treatment over another. Respondents were asked how they would manage each hypothetical case. Respondents also estimated the risk of redislocation for the nonoperative cases for comparison with the published rates. Finally, respondents completed a Likert-scale questionnaire to determine their perceptions on factors influencing their decisions. Results: A total of 103 orthopaedic surgeons completed the survey; 48% practiced in an academic hospital; 79% were in practice for 10 years or longer; and 75% had completed a sports medicine fellowship. Patient preferences were the single most important factor influencing treatment recommendation, with activity type and age also important. Just 62% of the surgeon estimates of the risk of redislocation were consistent with the published rates. The inclusion of patient preferences to clinical variables changed treatment recommendations in 62.5% of our hypothetical cases. Respondents rated patient treatment preference as the leading factor in their treatment decision making. Conclusion: Patient preferences were important when deciding the appropriate treatment for FTASD. Respondents were inconsistent when applying evidence in their decision making and estimates of recurrent instability. Decision support tools that deliver patient preferences and personalized evidence-based outcome estimates improve the quality of decision making at the point of care.

Treatment of canine cranial cruciate ligament disease

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (06) ◽  
pp. 478-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. W. Martin ◽  
M. Rishniw ◽  
R. H. Palmer ◽  
L. E. Selmic ◽  
F. M. Duerr
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Treatment Recommendation ◽  
Cranial Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Decision Factors ◽  
Cranial Cruciate Ligament Disease

SummaryObjective: To describe veterinarians’ treatment recommendations and decision-making factors for dogs with cranial cruciate ligament disease (CCLD).Methods: An online survey of American College of Veterinary Surgeons (ACVS)-Diplomates (surgeon group) and primary care veterinarians (practitioner group) was performed. The survey included questions on treatment recommendations for common case scenarios (small or large breed dog with complete or partial CCLD), treatment decision factors, non-surgical treatment options, and actual treatment, if any, provided for a client-owned dog as well as one owned by their family or close friend.Results: The response rate was 42% for the surgeon group (n = 305/723) and four percent for the practitioner group (n = 1145/ 27,771). Extracapsular stabilization (ES) was the most common treatment recommendation for CCLD in small (9.1 kg) breed dogs amongst surgeons and practitioners. Tibial plateau levelling osteotomy (TPLO) was the most common treatment recommendation for CCLD in large (27.2 kg) breed dogs amongst both groups. The two most important treatment decision factors were dog size (78% of practitioners, 69% of surgeons) and activity level (63% of practitioners, 52% of surgeons). The most common treatment provided for a dog of their own or close relation in the surgeon group was TPLO (64%) followed by ES (15%), whereas in the practitioner group it was ES (38%) followed by TPLO (30%).Clinical significance: Extracapsular stabilization and TPLO are the most commonly employed surgical procedures in the surveyed population; dog size and activity level (but not age) are the major factors influencing treatment decisions.

Would you Make the Right Decision? – Decision Making Biases in Economy - Related Dilemmas

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-66
Author(s):  
Zsuzsanna Gödör ◽  
Georgina Szabó
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Framing Effect ◽  
Economic Knowledge ◽  
Bank Account ◽  
Financial Decisions ◽  
Hungarian Population ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Decision Making Biases

Abstract As they say, money can’t buy happiness. However, the lack of it can make people’s lives much harder. From the moment we open our first bank account, we have to make lots of financial decisions in our life. Should I save some money or should I spend it? Is it a good idea to ask for a loan? How to invest my money? When we make such decisions, unfortunately we sometimes make mistakes, too. In this study, we selected seven common decision making biases - anchoring and adjustment, overconfidence, high optimism, the law of small numbers, framing effect, disposition effect and gambler’s fallacy – and tested them on the Hungarian population via an online survey. In the focus of our study was the question whether the presence of economic knowledge helps people make better decisions? The decision making biases found in literature mostly appeared in the sample as well. It proves that people do apply them when making decisions and in certain cases this could result in serious and costly errors. That’s why it would be absolutely important for people to learn about them, thus increasing their awareness and attention when making decisions. Furthermore, in our research we did find some connection between decisions and the knowledge of economics, people with some knowledge of economics opted for the better solution in bigger proportion

Deriving Effective Decision-Making Strategies of Prosthetists: Using Hidden Markov Modeling and Qualitative Analysis to Compare Experts and Novices

2021 ◽  
pp. 001872082110328
Author(s):  
Pratima Saravanan ◽  
Jessica Menold
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Hidden Markov ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Markov Modeling ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Case Complexity ◽  
Hidden Markov Modeling ◽  
Expert And Novice

Objective This research focuses on studying the clinical decision-making strategies of expert and novice prosthetists for different case complexities. Background With an increasing global amputee population, there is an urgent need for improved amputee care. However, current prosthetic prescription standards are based on subjective expertise, making the process challenging for novices, specifically during complex patient cases. Hence, there is a need for studying the decision-making strategies of prosthetists. Method An interactive web-based survey was developed with two case studies of varying complexities. Navigation between survey pages and time spent were recorded for 28 participants including experts ( n = 20) and novices ( n = 8). Using these data, decision-making strategies, or patterns of decisions, during prosthetic prescription were derived using hidden Markov modeling. A qualitative analysis of participants’ rationale regarding decisions was used to add a deep contextualized understanding of decision-making strategies derived from the quantitative analysis. Results Unique decision-making strategies were observed across expert and novice participants. Experts tended to focus on the personal details, activity level, and state of the residual limb prior to prescription, and this strategy was independent of case complexity. Novices tended to change strategies dependent upon case complexity, fixating on certain factors when case complexity was high. Conclusion The decision-making strategies of experts stayed the same across the two cases, whereas the novices exhibited mixed strategies. Application By modeling the decision-making strategies of experts and novices, this study builds a foundation for development of an automated decision-support tool for prosthetic prescription, advancing novice training, and amputee care.

scholarly journals THU0647-HPR SHARED DECISION MAKING AMONGST RHEUMATOLOGISTS IN TRAINING IN THE NETHERLANDS: WHERE DO WE STAND?

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 568.2-568
Author(s):  
L. Kranenburg ◽  
M. Dankbaar ◽  
N. Basoski ◽  
W. Van den Broek ◽  
J. Hazes
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Professional Activities ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
The Subject

Background:The training curriculum for rheumatologists in training in the Netherlands describes competences and entrusted professional activities (EPA) to monitor the progress in learning. However, this training program does not discuss training of Shared Decision Making. As the basis for shared care and patient participation is made during these years, the question arises how rheumatologist in training think about Shared Decision Making and how they use this in daily practice.Objectives:Inventory of vision, experience and self-evaluation of skills related to Shared Decision Making amongst rheumatologists in training in the Netherlands in order to identify barriers in the implementation of Shared Decision Making in daily practice.Methods:Qualitative data was collected from on online survey amongst rheumatologists in training who were registered in January 2018 by the Dutch Society of Rheumatology.Results:Forty-two rheumatologists in training from various years of training responded (60%). Respondents think that Shared Decision Making is important. A third applies Shared Decision Making on a regular basis in daily practice. Self rating of skills for Shared Decision Making varies from sufficient to good. However, respondents are uncertain about their performance due to a lack of feedback and unclearness of the concept. They indicate that Shared Decision Making is not possible for all patients and find it difficult to assess whether the patient has a clear understanding of the options. Patient’s preferences are discussed only by 33% of the doctors on a regular basis when starting new treatment.Conclusion:Rheumatologists in training agree on the importance of Shared Decision Making, but are uncertain about their performance. Unclearness of the concept is described as a known barrier in literature1,2and is frequently mentioned by respondents. Rheumatologist in training indicate that not all patients are fit for Shared Decision Making. Regarding the limited training on the subject this could also be a misjudgment of patients preferences and lack of experience how to deal with different patient types. There is a clear plea for more training and feedback on the subject. Training should be integrated in the curriculum focusing on how to assess patients preferences and how to apply Shared Decision Making also for patients who indicate to leave decisions up to their doctor.References:[1]van Veenendaal, H.et al.Accelerating implementation of shared decision-making in the Netherlands: An exploratory investigation.Patient Educ Couns101, 2097-2104 (2018).[2]Legare, F., Ratte, S., Gravel, K. & Graham, I. D. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions.Patient Educ Couns73, 526-535 (2008).Disclosure of Interests:Laura Kranenburg Grant/research support from: Pfizer and UCB for the development of the Reuma App, a tool to support selfmanagement for patients. This is not used for the research related to the submitted abstract., Mary Dankbaar: None declared, Natalja Basoski: None declared, Walter Van den Broek: None declared, Johanna Hazes: None declared

scholarly journals Decision Making for Treatment After ACL Injury From an Orthopaedic Surgeon and Patient Perspective: Results From the NACOX Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 232596712110050
Author(s):  
Hanna Tigerstrand Grevnerts ◽  
Sofi Sonesson ◽  
Håkan Gauffin ◽  
Clare L. Ardern ◽  
Anders Stålman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
High Activity ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Knee Instability ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
And Function

Background: In the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, there is little evidence of when and why a decision for ACL reconstruction (ACLR) or nonoperative treatment (non-ACLR) is made. Purpose: To (1) describe the key characteristics of ACL injury treatment decisions and (2) compare patient-reported knee instability, function, and preinjury activity level between patients with non-ACLR and ACLR treatment decisions. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 216 patients with acute ACL injury were evaluated during the first year after injury. The treatment decision was non-ACLR in 73 patients and ACLR in 143. Reasons guiding treatment decision were obtained from medical charts and questionnaires to patients and orthopaedic surgeons. Patient-reported instability and function were obtained via questionnaires and compared between patients with non-ACLR and ACLR treatment decisions. The ACLR treatment group was classified retrospectively by decision phase: acute phase (decision made between injury day and 31 days after injury), subacute phase (decision made between 32 days and up to 5 months after injury), and late phase (decision made 5-12 months after injury). Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and group comparisons were made using parametric or nonparametric tests as appropriate. Results: The main reasons for a non-ACLR treatment decision were no knee instability and no problems with knee function. The main reasons for an ACLR treatment decision were high activity demands and knee instability. Patients in the non-ACLR group were significantly older ( P = .031) and had a lower preinjury activity level than did those in the acute-phase ( P < .01) and subacute-phase ( P = .006) ACLR decision groups. There were no differences in patient-reported instability and function between treatment decision groups at baseline, 4 weeks after injury, or 3 months after injury. Conclusion: Activity demands, not patient-reported knee instability, may be the most important factor in the decision-making process for treatment after ACL injury. We suggest a decision-making algorithm for patients with ACL injuries and no high activity demands; waiting for >3 months can help distinguish those who need surgical intervention from those who can undergo nonoperative management. Registration: NCT02931084 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

scholarly journals The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on wellbeing and cognitive functioning of older adults

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah De Pue ◽  
Céline Gillebert ◽  
Eva Dierckx ◽  
Marie-Anne Vanderhasselt ◽  
Rudi De Raedt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Sleep Quality ◽  
Cognitive Functioning ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
The Impact

AbstractCOVID-19 took a heavy toll on older adults. In Belgium, by the end of August, 93% of deaths due to COVID-19 were aged 65 or older. Similar trends were observed in other countries. As a consequence, older adults were identified as a group at risk, and strict governmental restrictions were imposed on them. This has caused concerns about their mental health. Using an online survey, this study established the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adults aged 65 years or older, and which factors moderate this impact. Participants reported a significant decrease in activity level, sleep quality and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Depression was strongly related to reported declines in activity level, sleep quality, wellbeing and cognitive functioning. Our study shows that the COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on the mental health of older adults. This implies that this group at risk requires attention of governments and healthcare.

scholarly journals Public knowledge, preferences and experiences about medical substitute decision-making: a national cross-sectional survey

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002619
Author(s):  
Marcus Sellars ◽  
Julien Tran ◽  
Linda Nolte ◽  
Ben White ◽  
Craig Sinclair ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Public Knowledge ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Medical Decisions ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Minimal Support ◽  
Substitute Decision Maker ◽  
Final Sample ◽  
Advance Care

ObjectiveTo describe the Australian adult public’s knowledge and experiences regarding substitute decision-making for medical decisions and their preferences for obtaining information about the substitute decision-maker (SDM) role.MethodsThis is a national cross-sectional online survey of the Australian adult public. The survey examined participants’ advance care planning (ACP) awareness and experience, SDM experiences and preferences for obtaining more information about SDM, and participant knowledge about SDM.ResultsOf 1586 people who opened the survey, 1120 (70.6%) were included in the final sample. 13% (n=142) of participants indicated they had acted as an SDM. A median score of two correct responses out of five showed low to moderate knowledge about the SDM role among all participants, with only 33% reporting awareness of SDM laws existing in Australia. While most (59%) participants ranked a health professional as their preferred source of obtaining information about supporting SDMs, few participants who had been an SDM (n=64, 45%) reported obtaining any support in making medical decisions. The median SDM knowledge scores for people who had discussed ACP (3.0 vs 2.0, U=1 45 222, z=6.910, p<0.001), documented their ACP preferences (3.0 vs 2.0, U=71 984, z=4.087, p<0.001) or acted in the SDM role (3.0 vs 2.0, U=56 353, z=−3.694, p<0.001) were significantly higher compared with those who had not.ConclusionsThe Australian public may have low to moderate knowledge about the SDM role and access only minimal support when making challenging medical decisions.

scholarly journals Patterns of care for prostate cancer radiotherapy—results from a survey among German-speaking radiation oncologists

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco M. E. Vogel ◽  
Sabrina Dewes ◽  
Eva K. Sage ◽  
Michal Devecka ◽  
Jürgen E. Gschwend ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Equivalent Dose ◽  
Patterns Of Care ◽  
Treatment Recommendation ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Prostate Bed ◽  
Radiation Oncologists ◽  
German Speaking

Abstract Background Emerging moderately hypofractionated and ultra-hypofractionated schemes for radiotherapy (RT) of prostate cancer (PC) have resulted in various treatment options. The aim of this survey was to evaluate recent patterns of care of German-speaking radiation oncologists for RT of PC. Methods We developed an online survey which we distributed via e‑mail to all registered members of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO). The survey was completed by 109 participants between March 3 and April 3, 2020. For evaluation of radiation dose, we used the equivalent dose at fractionation of 2 Gy with α/β = 1.5 Gy, equivalent dose (EQD2 [1.5 Gy]). Results Median EQD2(1.5 Gy) for definitive RT of the prostate is 77.60 Gy (range: 64.49–84.00) with median single doses (SD) of 2.00 Gy (range: 1.80–3.00), while for postoperative RT of the prostate bed, median EQD2(1.5 Gy) is 66.00 Gy (range: 60.00–74.00) with median SD of 2.00 Gy (range: 1.80–2.00). For definitive RT, the pelvic lymph nodes (LNs) are treated in case of suspect findings in imaging (82.6%) and/or according to risk formulas/tables (78.0%). In the postoperative setting, 78.9% use imaging and 78.0% use the postoperative tumor stage for LN irradiation. In the definitive and postoperative situation, LNs are irradiated with a median EQD2(1.5 Gy) of 47.52 Gy with a range of 42.43–66.00 and 41.76–62.79, respectively. Conclusion German-speaking radiation oncologists’ patterns of care for patients with PC are mainly in line with the published data and treatment recommendation guidelines. However, dose prescription is highly heterogenous for RT of the prostate/prostate bed, while the dose to the pelvic LNs is mainly consistent.

scholarly journals Community Preferences for Urban Systems Transformation in Australia

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 4749
Author(s):  
Milo Costanza-van den Belt ◽  
Tayanah O’Donnell ◽  
Robert Webb ◽  
Eleanor Robson ◽  
Robert Costanza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Shared Vision ◽  
Urban Systems ◽  
Urban Structure ◽  
Sustainable Cities ◽  
Community Needs ◽  
National Workshop ◽  
Systems Transformation

Civil society engagement is important for enabling urban systems transformations that meet community needs. The development of Future Earth Australia’s Sustainable Cities and Regions: A 10-Year Strategy for Urban Systems was underpinned by cross-sectoral workshops in 7 Australian urban areas and interviews with key stakeholders to create a shared vision of both current and desired future urban structure and policy. We then created an online survey to gauge broader community feedback on the vision which emerged from these workshops and interviews, to compare their outcomes with the views of community members who could be directly impacted by urban decision-making. The survey consisted of 35 questions, which were shaped by the issues emerging from the workshops and interviews. The sample was self-selected, and the 641 respondents represented a cross-section of individuals interested in sustainable cities. Our survey results supported and expanded on the major conclusions of FEA’s National workshop and interview processes, including the need to develop transparent and responsive decision-making processes, limit waste and pollution and develop effective housing and transport alternatives with mixed-use neighborhoods and adequate green space.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document