Cited by 57Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePrimary Care and Health OutcomesElectronic Health Records Systems

Content Coding for Contextualization of Care: Evaluating Physician Performance at Patient-Centered Decision Making

Weiner, Saul J., Kelly, Brendan, Ashley, Naomi, Binns-Calvey, Amy, Sharma, Gunjan, Schwartz, Alan, Weaver, Frances M.·2014·Medical Decision Making

Abstract

Background and Objective. Adapting best evidence to the care of the individual patient has been characterized as “contextualizing care” or “patient-centered decision making” (PCDM). PCDM incorporates clinically relevant, patient-specific circumstances and behaviors, that is, the patient’s context, into formulating a contextually appropriate plan of care. The objective was to develop a method for analyzing physician-patient interactions to ascertain whether decision making is patient centered. Methods. Patients carried concealed audio recorders during encounters with their physicians. Recordings and medical records were reviewed for clues that contextual factors, such as an inability to pay for a medication or competing responsibilities, might undermine an otherwise appropriate care plan, rendering it ineffective. Iteratively, the team refined a coding process to achieve high interrater agreement in determining (a) whether the clinician explored the clues—termed “contextual red flags”—for possible underlying contextual factors affecting care, (b) whether the presence of contextual factors was confirmed and, if so, (c) whether they were addressed in the final care plan. Results. A medical record data extraction instrument was developed to identify contextual red flags such as missed appointments or loss of control of a treatable chronic condition which signal that contextual factors may be affecting care. Interrater agreement (Cohen’s kappa) for coding whether the clinician explored contextual red flags, whether a contextual factor was identified, and whether the factors were addressed in the care plan was 88% (0.76, P < 0.001), 94% (0.88, P < 0.001), and 85% (0.69, P < 0.001) respectively. Conclusions. PCDM can be assessed with high interrater agreement using a protocol that examines whether essential contextual information (when present) is addressed in the plan of care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0272989x13493146

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 24 · Cited by 57

Authors
Weiner, S. J., Kelly, B., Ashley, N., Binns-Calvey, A., Sharma, G., Schwartz, A., & Weaver, F. M.
Affiliations
  • Loyola University Chicago (US)
  • Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, IL (SJW, NA, AB, GS)
Venue
Medical Decision Making
Published
2013-06-19
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
97-106
ISSN
  • 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-681X
OpenAlex
W2138170883
Cited by
57
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8
FWCI
6.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
patient-centered decision-making, physician-patient interaction, interobserver agreement, care planning, missed appointments, financial barriers to medication
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Humans, Patient Participation, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Observer Variation, Patient-Centered Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review