| 1. |
- Annoni, Marco, et al.
(författare)
-
Persons over models : shared decision-making for person-centered medicine
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare. - : University of Buckingham Press. - 2052-5648 .- 2052-5656. ; 8:3, s. 355-362
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In the last decades “shared decision-making” has been hailed as the new paradigm for the doctor-patient relationship. However, different models of clinical decision-making appear to be compatible with the core tenets of “shared decision-making”. Reconsidering Emanuel and Emanuel (1992) classic analysis, in this paper we distinguish five possible models of clinical decision-making: (i) the ‘instrumental’; (ii) the ‘paternalistic’; (iii) the ‘informative’; (iv) the ‘interpretative’; and (v) the ‘persuasive’ models. For each model we present its fundamental assumptions as well as the role that patients and doctors are expected to play with respect to value-laden dilemmas. We argue that, with the exception of the instrumental model, each of the other four models may be appropriate depending on the circumstances. We conclude by highlighting the importance of structuring clinical care around actual persons - and their unique lives and philosophies - rather than around abstract frameworks.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Bernstein, Michael
(författare)
-
Conclusion
- 2024
-
Ingår i: The Nocebo Effect. - Rochester, MN : Mayo Clinic Press.
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 4. |
- Bernstein, Michael H, et al.
(författare)
-
How do US orthopaedic surgeons view placebo-controlled surgical trials? : A pilot online survey study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Ethics. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0306-6800 .- 1473-4257.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Randomised placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating novel treatments. However, this design is rarely used in the context of orthopaedic interventions where participants are assigned to a real or placebo surgery. The present study examines attitudes towards RPCTs for orthopaedic surgery among 687 orthopaedic surgeons across the USA. When presented with a vignette describing an RPCT for orthopaedic surgery, 52.3% of participants viewed it as 'completely' or 'mostly' unethical. Participants were also asked to rank-order the value of five different types of evidence supporting the efficacy of a surgery, ranging from RPCT to an anecdotal report. Responses regarding RPCTs were polarised with 26.4% viewing it as the least valuable (even less valuable than an anecdote) and 35.7 .% viewing it as the most valuable. Where equipoise exists, if we want to subject orthopaedic surgeries to the highest standard of evidence (RPCTs) before they are implemented in clinical practice, it will be necessary to educate physicians on the value and ethics of placebo surgery control conditions. Otherwise, invasive procedures may be performed without any benefits beyond possible placebo effects.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Bernstein, Michael H, et al.
(författare)
-
Primary care providers’ use of and attitudes towards placebos : An exploratory focus group study with US physicians
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Health Psychology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1359-107X .- 2044-8287. ; 25:3, s. 596-614
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective To examine how primary care physicians define placebo concepts, use placebos in clinical practice, and view open-label placebos (OLPs).Design Semi-structured focus groups that were audio-recorded and content-coded.Methods Two focus groups with a total of 15 primary care physicians occurred at medical centres in the New England region of the United States. Prior experience using placebo treatments and attitudes towards open-label placebos were explored. Themes were analysed using an inductive data-driven approach.Results Physicians displayed a nuanced understanding of placebos and placebo effects in clinical contexts which sometimes focused on relational factors. Some respondents reported that they prescribed treatments with no known pharmacological effect for certain conditions and symptoms ('impure placebos') and that such prescriptions were more common for pain disorders, functional disorders, and medically unexplained symptoms. Opinions about OLP were mixed: Some viewed OLPs favourably or considered them 'harmless'; however, others strongly rejected OLPs as disrespectful to patients. Other issues in relation to OLPs included the following: lack of guidelines, legal and reputational concerns, and the notion that such treatments would run counter to customary medical practice.Conclusions A number of physicians reported prescribing impure placebos in clinical care. Although some primary care physicians were resistant to the possibility of recommending OLPs, others regarded OLPs more favourably, viewing them as potential treatments, albeit with restricted potential.
|
|
| 7. |
- Bernstein, Michael H, et al.
(författare)
-
Putting the art into the art of medicine : The under-explored role of artifacts in placebo studies
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Psychology. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 1664-1078. ; 11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Research in social psychology demonstrates that physical environmental factors - or "artifacts" such as provider clothing and office decor - can influence health outcomes. However, the role of artifacts in augmenting or diminishing health outcomes is under-explored in the burgeoning discipline of placebo studies. In this paper, we argue that a careful consideration of artifacts may carry significant potential in informing how placebo effects can be maximized, and nocebo effects minimized in clinical settings. We discuss the potential mechanisms, including classical conditioning, response expectancy, and mindsets, by which artifacts might enhance or diminish these effects. Next, we propose testable hypotheses to investigate how placebo and nocebo effects might be elicited by artifacts in care settings, and conclude by providing innovative research designs to advance this novel research agendum.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Bernstein, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
Introduction
- 2024
-
Ingår i: The Nocebo Effect. - Rochester, MN : Mayo Clinic Press.
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 10. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
Artificial intelligence and the future of psychiatry : qualitative findings from a global physician survey
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Digital Health. - : SAGE Publications. - 2055-2076. ; 6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The potential for machine learning to disrupt the medical profession is the subject of ongoing debate within biomedical informatics.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore psychiatrists’ opinions about the potential impact innovations in artificial intelligence and machine learning on psychiatric practiceMethodsIn Spring 2019, we conducted a web-based survey of 791 psychiatrists from 22 countries worldwide. The survey measured opinions about the likelihood future technology would fully replace physicians in performing ten key psychiatric tasks. This study involved qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses (“comments”) to three open-ended questions in the survey.ResultsComments were classified into four major categories in relation to the impact of future technology on: (1) patient-psychiatrist interactions; (2) the quality of patient medical care; (3) the profession of psychiatry; and (4) health systems. Overwhelmingly, psychiatrists were skeptical that technology could replace human empathy. Many predicted that ‘man and machine’ would increasingly collaborate in undertaking clinical decisions, with mixed opinions about the benefits and harms of such an arrangement. Participants were optimistic that technology might improve efficiencies and access to care, and reduce costs. Ethical and regulatory considerations received limited attention.ConclusionsThis study presents timely information on psychiatrists’ views about the scope of artificial intelligence and machine learning on psychiatric practice. Psychiatrists expressed divergent views about the value and impact of future technology with worrying omissions about practice guidelines, and ethical and regulatory issues.
|
|
