Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query news events press coverage 2015 01 06.

Page not found

You are here

Wed, October 31, 2012

Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, recently had an article published in JAMA entitled “Gender Differences in the Salaries of Physician Researchers.” The results of the RWJ-funded study showed that male physician researchers earned $12,001 more than their female colleagues, after adjusting for a variety of factors that might impact salary. This disparity can add up to $350,000 over the course of a medical career.
Dr. Jagsi was interviewed by the Associated Press, and the article received considerable press coverage in multiple sources including the New York TimesForbes, MSNBC, and the Wall Street Journal. Click here for more information.

Tue, November 05, 2013

CBSSM Faculty member, Darin Zahuranec, MD, was featured in MedPageToday for his study on intracerebral hemorrhages and how the condition may be both over- and under-treated. Read the article here

Naomi Laventhal, MD, MA

Thu, October 29, 2015

Jeremy Sussman has received much press for a recent study in JAMA about rates of treatment deintensification in diabetes. Dr. Sussman is first author of a study that found that among older diabetes patients whose treatment resulted in very low blood pressure, only a minority (27% or fewer) underwent treatment deintensification for diabetes, which represents a lost opportunity to reduce overtreatment. The study suggests practice guidelines and performance measures should place more focus on reducing overtreatment through deintensification.

Tanner Caverly and other CBSSM faculty co-authored a national survey study in JAMA examining VA primary care health-care professionals' beliefs regarding prescribing for older diabetics. This study found misperceptions about the benefits of stringent blood glucose control and concerns about negative repercussions following deintensification of therapy. This study is also being cited in a number of press articles.

Original studies:

Sussman, Jeremy B., Eve A. Kerr, Sameer D. Saini, Rob G. Holleman, Mandi L. Klamerus, Lillian C. Min, Sandeep Vijan, and Timothy P. Hofer. "Rates of Deintensification of Blood Pressure and Glycemic Medication Treatment Based on Levels of Control and Life Expectancy in Older Patients With Diabetes Mellitus." JAMA Internal Medicine (2015): 1-8.

Caverly, Tanner J., Angela Fagerlin, Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, Susan Kirsh, Jeffrey Todd Kullgren, Katherine Prenovost, and Eve A. Kerr. "Appropriate Prescribing for Patients With Diabetes at High Risk for Hypoglycemia: National Survey of Veterans Affairs Health Care Professionals." JAMA internal medicine (2015): 1-3.

Give me colostomy or give me death! (Aug-06)

Click to decide between death and living with a colostomy. Which would you choose? Are you sure?

Given the choice, would you choose immediate death,or living with a colostomy (where part of your bowel is removed and you have bowel movements into a plastic pouch attached to your belly)?

  •  Immediate Death
  •  Colostomy

Think about what it would be like if you were diagnosed with colon cancer. You are given the option of choosing between two surgical treatments.The first is a surgery that could result in serious complications and the second has no chance of complications but has a higher mortality rate.

Possible outcome Surgery 1
(complicated)
Surgery 2 
(uncomplicated)
Cure without complication 80% 80%
Cure with colostomy 1%  
Cure with chronic diarrhea 1%  
Cure with intermittent bowel obstruction 1%  
Cure with wound infection 1%  
No cure (death) 16% 20%

If you had the type of colon cancer described above, which surgery do you think you would choose?

  • Surgery 1
  • Surgery 2

How do your answers compare?

In fact, past research has shown that 51% people choose the surgery with a higher death rate, even though most of them initially preferred each of the four surgical complications, including colostomy, over immediate death.

Are you saying what you really mean?

CBDSM investigators Brian Zikmund-Fisher, Angela Fagerlin, Peter Ubel, teamed up with Jennifer Amsterlaw, to see if they could reduce the number of people choosing the surgery with the higher rate of death and therefore reducing the discrepancy. A large body of past research has shown that people are notoriously averse to uncertainty. The investigators had a hunch that uncertainty could account for some of the discrepancy. Surgery 1 has a greater number of ambiguous outcomes, perhaps causing people to be averse to it. In an effort to minimize this uncertainty, the investigators laid out a series of scenarios outlining different circumstances and presentations of the two surgeries. For example the research presented some of the participants with a reframing of the surgery information, such as:

Possible outcome Surgery 1
(complicated)
Surgery 2 
(uncomplicated)
Cured without complication 80% 80%
Cured, but with one of the following complications: colostomy, chronic diarrhea, intermittent bowl obstruction, or wound infection 4%  
No cure (death) 16% 20%

The investigators believed by grouping all of the complications together that people would be more apt to chose the surgery with the lower mortality rate, because seeing a single group of undesirable outcomes, versus a list, may decrease some of the ambiguity from previous research.

Although none of the manipulations significantly reduced the percentage of participants selecting Surgery 2, the versions that yielded the lowest preference for this surgery all grouped the risk of the four possible complications into a single category, as in the example shown above.

Why these findings are important

Over the past several decades there has been a push to give patients more information so they can make decisions that are consistent with their personal preferences. On the other hand there is a growing psychological literature revealing people's tendency to make choices that are in fact inconsistent with their own preferences; this is a dilemma. Because the present research suggests that the discrepancy between value and surgery choice is extremely resilient, much research still needs to be done in order to understand what underlies the discrepancy, with the goal of eliminating it.

The research reported in this decision of the month is currently in press. Please come back to this page in the near future for a link to the article.

Read the article:

Can avoidance of complications lead to biased healthcare decisions?
Amsterlaw J, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Judgment and Decision Making 2006;1(1):64-75.

 

 

 

Sarah Hawley, PhD, MPH

Faculty

Dr. Sarah T. Hawley is a Professor in the Division of General Medicine at the University of Michigan and a Research Investigator at the Ann Arbor VA Center of Excellence in Health Services Research & Development. She holds a PhD in health services research from the University of North Carolina and an MPH from Yale University Department of Public Health. Her primary research is in decision making related to cancer prevention and control, particularly among racial/ethnic minority and underserved populations.

Last Name: 
Hawley

J. Scott Roberts, PhD

Faculty

Scott Roberts, PhD, is Associate Professor of Health Behavior & Health Education at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health (U-M SPH), where he directs the School’s Public Health Genetics program and teaches a course on public health ethics. A clinical psychologist by training, Dr. Roberts conducts research on the psychosocial implications of genetic testing for adult-onset diseases.

Last Name: 
Roberts

Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, PhD

Associate Director

Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher is an Associate Professor in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, as well as a Research Associate Professor in the Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School. He has been part of CBSSM and its precursors at U-M since 2002 and acts as CBSSM Associate Director.

Last Name: 
Zikmund-Fisher
Press Coverage: 

Kayte Spector-Bagdady, JD, MBioethics

Faculty

Kayte Spector-Bagdady is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Michigan Medical School and is also the Chief of the Research Ethics Service in the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM). At UM she also serves as Chair of the Research Ethics Committee, a clinical ethicist through CBSSM’s Clinical Ethics Service, and a member of IRB Council. Her current work focuses on the intersection of human subjects research law and ethics with a concentration on genetics, reproduction, and data sharing partnerships.

Last Name: 
Spector-Bagdady

Pages