Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query news events news 2017 11 25.

Page not found

You are here

I Saw It on a Billboard (Feb-10)

What is the impact of medical advertising that is directly targeted at patients? What information do consumers of medical products and therapies need in order to make informed decisions about their health?

Consider the following:

Ms. J, a healthy 50-year old woman, drives by a billboard that advertises low-dose spiral computed tomography (CT) scanning to screen for lung cancer. Although she has no family history of cancer and has never smoked, several of Ms. J’s friends have been diagnosed with cancer recently. She worries that she herself may have an undetected malignancy.

Responding to this advertising, Ms. J decides to pay out-of-pocket for a CT scan at the imaging center advertised on the billboard. The radiologist at this imaging center profits from the number of scans interpreted. As a result of the CT scan, an abnormality is found, and Ms. J undergoes a biopsy of her lung. A complication occurs from this procedure, but Ms. J recovers, and the biopsy comes back negative. She is relieved to learn that she does not have lung cancer.

After reading this scenario and thinking about direct-to consumer medical advertising, which of the following statements best represents your views?

  • STATEMENT A: Direct-to-consumer advertising improves patient education and patient-physician communication. Such advertising informs and empowers patients, so that their health care better reflects their needs and values. In particular, certain health services require complex medical equipment with high capital costs. Physicians who invest in such equipment do so because they believe in its promise, and they deserve payment to recoup their investment.
  • STATEMENT B: Direct-to-consumer advertising often results in misunderstanding, increased costs, and disruption of the patient-physician relationship. Such advertising can skew information to portray products in a positive light and can prey upon patients’ fears. Physicians closely allied with a treatment cannot offer objective assessment to patients about the efficacy or risks of the treatment. Further, most patients are ignorant of the financial incentives to physicians for various procedures.
  • STATEMENT C: I have not formed a viewpoint on direct-to-consumer medical advertising.

 

How do your answers compare? 

CBDSM's Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, has written a powerful challenge to the medical profession and medical industries in a recent issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Jagsi argues that the increasing proliferation of direct-to-patient advertising has raised questions of how physicians can function as unbiased intermediaries between patients and industry.

In the article, she presents six case studies, one of which has been excerpted and adapted for this Decision of the Month. Dr. Jagsi uses these case studies to address serious issues related to both advertising and conflict of interest. Some examples:

  • What implications does the frequently used advertising directive "Ask your doctor about X" have for the doctor-patient relationship?
  • How ethical is it to disguise medical advertising—for instance, to hire celebrities to discuss treatments during interviews?
  • Should a physician who prescribes a particular medical device be allowed to receive payment from the speakers' bureau of a company that produces that medical device?
  • Should a physician who holds an ownership interest in an expensive treatment machine be required to explain alternate treatments to patients?
  • When does a website about a medical treatment cross over from being informational to being promotional?

Dr. Jagsi argues that physicians have a strong ethical responsibility to their patients to call attention to potential conflicts of interest and to help interpret medical information in the best interests of their patients.

For more details about this study:

Jagsi R. Conflicts of interest and the physician-patient relationship in the era of direct-to-patient advertising. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007;25:902-905.

 

Are you a numbers person? (Oct-07)

Many types of medical decisions involve making sense of numbers such as test results, risk statistics, or prognosis estimates. But people vary in their ability and confidence with numbers. How would you rate your own "numeracy"?

 

Not good at all

 

 

 

 

 

Extremely good

How good are you at working with fractions?

1

2

3

4

5

6

How good are you at working with percentages?

1

2

3

4

5

6

How good are you at calculating a 15% tip?

1

2

3

4

5

6

How good are you at figuring out how much a shirt will cost if it is 25% off?

1

2

3

4

5

6

 

Not at all helpful

 

 

 

 

Extremely helpful

When reading the newspaper, how helpful do you find tables and graphs that are parts of a story?

1

2

3

4

5

6

 

Always prefer words

 

 

 

 

Always prefer numbers

When people tell you the chance of something happening, do you prefer that they use words ("it rarely happens") or numbers ("there's a 1% chance")?

1

2

3

4

5

6

 

Always prefer percentages

 

 

 

 

Always prefer words

When you hear a weather forecast, do you prefer predictions using percentages (e.g., "there will be a 20% chance of rain today") or predictions using only words (e.g., "there is a small chance of rain today")

1

2

3

4

5

6

 

Never

 

 

 

 

Very often

How often do you find numerical information to be useful?

1

2

3

4

5

6

Why is it important for researchers to know how numerate you are?

When a doctor or health educator is trying to communicate complex statistical information to a patient, it's helpful to know how well the patient understands numbers. This is called numeracy-the ability to process basic probability and numerical concepts. People low in numeracy might want or need different types of explanations than people high in numeracy.

How is numeracy measured?

In the past, researchers have used surveys similar to math tests to evaluate the levels of numeracy of participants in research studies. These objective numeracy tests can be time-consuming to administer and are often seen by the participants as stressful and annoying. As an alternative, a CBDSM research team-including Angela Fagerlin, Brian Zikmund-Fisher, Dylan Smith, Aleksandra Jankovic, and Peter Ubel-recently designed and tested an eight-item self-assessment tool, called the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS), to measure numeracy. As you saw when you completed the tool, four of the questions on the SNS measure people's beliefs about their skill in performing various mathematical operations, and four measure people's preferences about the presentation of numerical information. When the CBDSM team tested the SNS, they found that it was moderately correlated with objective numeracy tests. In a variety of risk communication and preference elicitation tasks, the SNS also predicted people's behavior almost as well as an objective numeracy test did. The advantage of the SNS is that it is quick to administer and is less stressful to participants than objective tests. In addition, only the SNS is recommended for phone or Internet administration. The researchers also found that study participants who completed the SNS were much more likely to answer all the numeracy questions and were much more likely to say that they would be willing to participate in an additional research study.

Are their broader implications?

Research has shown that many Americans, including highly educated individuals, have low levels of numeracy. Low numeracy has significant implications for people's health care, especially when it comes to understanding the risks and benefits of treatments. Although we may not easily change people's numeric ability, it may be possible to create health education materials that help patients with low numeracy skills. Several CBDSM researchers are have been pursuing this subject.

Read the articles:

Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS).
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Medical Decision Making 2007;27(5):672-680.

Validation of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS): Effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations.
Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Medical Decision Making 2007;27(5):663-671.

Making numbers matter: Present and future research in risk communication.
Fagerlin A, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. American Journal of Health Behavior 2007;31(Suppl. 1):S47-S56.

 

 

Get it out of me! (Dec-05)

A 5% chance of death or a 10% chance of death:  which would you choose?

Imagine that you have been diagnosed with a slow growing cancer. Right now, the cancer is not causing you to feel sick. For most people, the cancer will grow so slowly it will never cause them any trouble. For others, the cancer will grow to the point that it makes them sick. Untreated, five percent (5 out of 100) will die of the cancer. Your doctor tells you that you have two treatment options: watchful waiting or surgery. Watchful waiting means you will not do any treatment right away, but your doctor will follow your cancer closely and treat any symptoms that you have if it begins to spread. Although it would be too late to be cured, you would be comfortable and free of pain. There are no side effects to watchful waiting, but five percent (5 out of 100) of the people who choose this treatment will develop symptoms and die from their cancer within five years. On the other hand, the surgery would cure your cancer permanently. Following surgery you will feel more tired than usual and will experience stomach upset occasionally for the three months following your surgery. However, surgery has a ten percent (10 out of 100) risk of death during the surgery.

Imagine that both of these treatments are completely covered by your health insurance. Which would you choose?

  •  I would not take the surgery and accept the 5% chance of dying from this cancer.
  •  I would take the surgery and accept the 10% chance of dying from the surgery.

How do your answers compare?

In the real world, cancer patients sometimes choose treatments that may have devastating side effects over less invasive, yet equally or more effective, approaches. One explanation for this is that people may feel a strong need to "get the cancer out" of their bodies. Surgical removal of all potentially cancerous tissues may satisfy this desire so thoroughly that people end up ignoring important statistical information about adverse outcomes.

Making a choice not in their best interest

CBDSM investigators Angela Fagerlin, Brian Zikmund-Fisher, and Peter Ubel hypothesized that people perceive cancer diagnoses as a call to action, and more specifically, a call to get rid of the cancer through surgery, regardless of what statistical information might say to the contrary. Consequently, they predicted that when presented with hypothetical cancer diagnoses, many people would say they would pursue surgery even if such an action would decrease their chance of survival.

To explore the relative frequency of people's willingness to choose surgery when it wasn't in their best interest, the investigators designed a cancer scenario similar to the one you read on the previous page. Participants were presented either a surgery or a medication treatment that would either increase or decrease their chance of survival.

The investigators found that participants who were presented with the opportunity to rid themselves of their cancer through surgery were significantly more inclined to take action than those who were presented with the medication treatment. For example, when the treatment reduced their overall chance of survival, 65% chose the surgery, whereas only 38% chose the medication treatment. This suggests that people's treatment decisions may be based not on the effectiveness of the treatments, but rather on their beliefs about how cancer should be treated. Specifically, cancer diagnoses seem to conjure up a strong desire for active treatment. And people seem to have an intuitive belief that action should not just involve treatment, but surgical removal of the cancer.

Why these findings are important

The results of this study may resonate with many clinicians who have encountered cancer patients who seem to desire treatment for treatment's sake, or who have a preference for surgical intervention even before they learn about the pros and cons of their treatment alternatives. This study should serve to remind clinicians that patients' preference for action can be strong enough, at times, to be a bias. At a minimum, it is important for health care professionals to be aware of the potential for such biases, so they can decide whether to accept patients' preferences at face value, or try to convince patients that aggressively treating a tumor may not be in their best interests.

Read the article:

Cure me even if it kills me: Preferences for invasive cancer treatment.
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Medical Decision Making 2005;25(6):614-619.

2016 CBSSM Research Colloquium and Bishop Lecture (William Dale, MD, PhD)

Wed, April 27, 2016, 8:30am
Location: 
Founders Room, Alumni Center, 200 Fletcher St., Ann Arbor, MI

The Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM) Research Colloquium was held Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at the Founders Room, Alumni Center, 200 Fletcher Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

The CBSSM Research Colloquium featured the Bishop Lecture in Bioethics as the keynote address.  William Dale, MD, PhD presented the Bishop Lecture with a talk entitled: "Why Do We So Often Overtreat, Undertreat, and Mistreat Older Adults with Cancer?"

William Dale, MD, PhD is Associate Professor of Medicine and Chief, Section of Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine & Director, SOCARE Clinic at the University of Chicago. A geriatrician with a doctorate in health policy and extensive experience in oncology, Dr. Dale has devoted his career to the care of older adults with cancer -- particularly prostate cancer. Dr. Dale has a special interest in the identification and treatment of vulnerable older patients who have complex medical conditions, including cancer. He is actively researching the interactions of cancer therapies with changes associated with aging.

 

The 2016 Research Colloquium Presentation Schedule:

  •     8:30 AM -- Check in & refreshments
  •     9:00 AM -- Welcome
  •     9:05 AM -- Katrina Hauschildt, MA, PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology: "Language and Communication as Professionalization Projects in Clinical Ethics Consultation"
  •     9:30 AM -- Devan Stahl, PhD, Assistant Professor of Clinical Ethics, MSU: "Is there a right not to know?"
  •     9:55 AM -- Chithra Perumalswami, MD MSc, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/Veterans Affairs Clinical Scholar: "Insurance Status of Elderly Americans and Location of Death"
  •     10:20 AM -- Break
  •     10:35 AM -- William Dale, MD, PhD, 2016 Bishop Lecture in Bioethics: "Why Do We So Often Overtreat, Undertreat, and Mistreat Older Adults with Cancer?"
  •     12:00 PM -- Lunch
  •     12:45 PM -- Lauren B. Smith, M.D., Associate Professor, Department of Pathology/Ginny Sheffield, UM Medical Student (M3): "Special treatment for the VIP patient:  Is it ethical?  Is it dangerous?"
  •     1:10 PM -- Naomi Laventhal, MD, MA, Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases: "Roman Charity Redux: The Moral Obligations of the Breastfeeding Physician"
  •     1:35 PM -- Archana Bharadwaj, Graduate Student, UM School of Public Health: "Patient understanding and satisfaction regarding the clinical use of whole genome sequencing: Findings from the MedSeq Project"
  •     2:00 PM -- Kayte Spector-Bagdady, JD, MBioethics, CBSSM Postdoctoral Research Fellow: "Direct‐to‐Consumer Biobanking"
  •     2:25 PM -- Break
  •     2:40 PM --Panel Presentation (Susan Goold, MD, MHSA, MA & colleagues) : "Community engagement in setting research priorities: Representation, Participation and Evaluation"
    • Why (and how) was CBPR supported in DECIDERS?
    • How were communities represented in DECIDERS decision making?
    • Why and how was the partnership evaluated?
    • How were the 47 focus groups engaged in setting research priorities?
Tue, January 03, 2017

Reshma Jagsi was lead author on a recent study that found many patients with breast cancer unnecessarily choose double mastectomy. This study found that many patients consider contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), but their knowledge about the procedure is low and discussions with surgeons appear to be incomplete. CPM use is substantial among patients without clinical indications but is lower when patients report that their surgeon recommended against it. The study authors stress that more effective physician-patient communication about CPM is needed to reduce potential overtreatment.

CBSSM faculty, Sarah Hawley, was a co-author on this study.

Wed, February 01, 2017

Sarah Hawley and Reshma Jagsi are co-authors on two studies of the impact of doctor-patient communication on patients' perceptions of their breast cancer recurrence risk. They found that breast cancer patients commonly overestimate their risk of recurrence, which was a negative impact on their quality of life. The two studies were highlighted in a MHealth Lab Report. Brian Zikmund-Fisher was also co-author on one of these studies.

Wed, February 15, 2017

According to a study by Reshma Jagsi and colleagues, doctors often fail to recommend genetic testing for breast-cancer patients, even those who are at high risk for mutations linked to ovarian and other cancers. They surveyed 2,529 breast-cancer patients and found that although two-thirds of the women reported wanting genetic testing, less than a third actually got it. About 8 in 10 women at highest risk for BRCA mutations — because of family history or ancestry — said they had wanted testing, but only a little more than half received it.

Bioethics Grand Rounds

Wed, February 22, 2017, 12:00pm
Location: 
UH Ford Amphitheater & Lobby

Devan Stahl, Assistant Professor, Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Department of Pediatrics and Human Development Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy

Title –  Responding to Hopes for a Miracle

Abstract: How should clinicians respond to patient’s or family’s hope for a “miracle”? What if the family wants to continue aggressive care that clinicians believe is non-beneficial in the hopes that a miracle will occur? The presentation will frame the discussion of miracle language and offer practical guidance on working with patients and families who invoke miracle language during a patient’s hospital stay.

At the end of this presentation participants will be able to:

1. Classify and distinguish between the most common ways patients/families use miracle language
2. Describe the ethical tensions that emerge when families request that clinicians continue non-beneficial care in the hopes a miracle will occur
3. Identify a set of strategies for productively engaging with patients/families who expect miracles

Jacquelyn Miller, MA

Research Associate

Jackie re-joined CBSSM in spring of 2017. She currently works with Drs. Lesly Dossett and Tom Valley on projects related to the worries and concerns of those with loved ones in the ICU, feedback and disclosure of errors that have occurred in other hospital systems, and opioid prescribing after cancer surgery. She has a BS in Environmental Policy and Developing Country Studies (University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment) and a MA in Sociology, specializing in environmental justice, feminist sociology, and science and technology studies (Michigan State University).

Last Name: 
Miller

Teach-Out Course: Reach Out and RELATE: Communicating and Understanding Scientific Research

Fri, May 05, 2017, 8:00am
Location: 
Online

About this course
Everyone - non-scientists and scientists alike - has some form of expertise, but communicating across a gap in knowledge or experience is challenging. In this Teach-Out, we address this challenge by helping participants to develop core communication skills and more effectively communicate with one another. For more information or to enroll, click here.

What you'll learn

  • Understand why science communication is both important and challenging
  • Develop strategies to effectively bridge communications between public audiences and scientific researchers
  • Understand expert perspectives on different areas of public engagement with science
  • Shape a compelling, message-focused STEM narrative for a specific audience
  • Discuss important issues in science communication with others


Meet the instructors

Elyse L. Aurbach PhD
Co-Founder and Co-Director of RELATE

Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher PhD
Associate Professor of Health Behavior and Health Education

Brandon Patterson MS
Co-Director of RELATE

Katherine E. Prater PhD
Co-Founder and Co-Director of RELATE
 

Pages