No abstract

Background and Objectives Physicians routinely discuss adverse effects of medications, but whether discussions match older patients’ desire for information is unexplored. This study compares patient preferences for adverse effect discussions with reported physician practice. Methods Cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 100 practicing primary care physicians from 9 medical groups and 178 patients recruited from 11 senior centers in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Physicians listed the adverse effects they typically discuss when prescribing an ACE inhibitor. Patients were given a hypothetical scenario about a new medication prescription, and were asked to circle the three adverse effects they most wanted to hear about from a list. Results More than 90 % of patients wanted a physician to discuss medication adverse effects: they wanted information about both dangerous (75 % of patients) and common (66 % of patients) adverse effects. However, patients most commonly chose to hear about adverse effects occurring for < 1 % of patients and selected a wide range of adverse effects for discussion. Physicians reported most frequently educating patients about more common and life-threatening adverse effects. Patients who wanted to discuss more adverse effects were more worried about adverse effects than those wishing to hear fewer (4.0 vs. 3.4 on a 5-point Likert scale; p = 0.02). Conclusions For the studied medication, there was little concordance between the medication adverse effects physicians say they discuss and what patients want to hear. Physicians cannot practically verbally satisfy patients’ information desires about the adverse effects of new medications during time-compressed office visits. Innovative solutions are needed.

Objective Describe the content and frequency of provider-patient dietary supplement discussions during primary care office visits. Methods Inductive content analysis of 1477 transcribed audio-recorded office visits to 102 primary care providers was combined with patient and provider surveys. Encounters were collected in Los Angeles, California (2009–2010), geographically-diverse practice settings across the United States (2004–2005), and Sacramento, CA (1998–1999). Results Providers discussed 738 dietary supplements during encounters with 357 patients (24.2% of all encounters in the data). They mentioned: 1) reason for taking the supplement for 46.5% of dietary supplements; 2) how to take the supplement for 28.2%; 3) potential risks for 17.3%; 4) supplement effectiveness for 16.7%; and 5) supplement cost or affordability for 4.2%. Of these five topics, a mean of 1.13 (SD=1.2) topics were discussed for each supplement. More topics were reviewed for non-vitamin non-mineral supplements (mean 1.47 (SD=1.2)) than for vitamin/mineral supplements (mean 0.99 (SD=1.1); p<0.001). Conclusion While discussions about supplements are occurring, it is clear that more discussion might be needed to inform patient decisions about supplement use. Practice Implication Physicians could more frequently address topics that may influence patient dietary supplement use, such as the risks, effectiveness, and costs of supplements.

No abstract

This article examines not only how events are verbally reported in everyday and institutional storytelling episodes, but also how the actions witnessed are enacted by participants. This is particularly important to not only the believability of what occurred and is being discussed (e.g. the US court of law), but also how ordinary audience members react to stories and how they believe the truthfulness of them. As is seen in data analyzed from multiple sources, the way in which something is both reported and (re)enacted has major implications for not only the telling of stories, but what we know about the world around us. Questions about the idea of 'direct reported actions' are also considered.