Inflammatory Arthritis, Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Conditions
Keywords
Implicit Bias, Quality of Care, Rheumatology
Brief summary
The first aim of this study is to test the efficacy of a real-time provider-based individuation intervention to improve the receipt of high-quality rheumatic disease care among Black/African American and lower socioeconomic status (SES) individuals. The second aim is to determine the effect of the individuation intervention on provider-patient communication, adherence, provider trust and care satisfaction.
Detailed description
The goal of this pilot is to test the efficacy of an individuation-based intervention among rheumatologists and their patients at two large, multisite academic-based hospital practices to improve racial and SES equity in receipt of high quality care. The primary aim is not to reduce provider bias, but rather to reduce the reliance on implicit bias in care decisions for Black and lower SES patients to lessen the impact of structural racism and inequality on care. The investigators plan to conduct a cluster-randomized controlled trial. The clusters are 20 rheumatologists at multisite BWH and MGH-affiliated clinics. Rheumatologists will be stratified by hospital and by gender and randomly assigned to one of two groups. Ten rheumatologists will be assigned to the intervention arm and ten to the control. Assessments will be conducted for 8-10 patients per rheumatologist (max 100 patients total in each arm, 200 total). Randomization will be stratified by BWH and MGH Rheumatology main campus hospitals (MGH or BWH/ Faulkner (FH)) and their rheumatology satellite clinic sites, and by provider gender (male or female). Inclusion and exclusion criteria for providers and patients are listed under Eligibility Criteria. Providers who consent will be stratified by gender and site and randomized to the intervention or control arm. All providers in both arms will be asked to complete demographic surveys and four Implicit Association Tests (IATs). Two of the tests assess biases related to race and two parallel tests assess biases related to socioeconomic status. After providers take the IATs and complete the baseline demographics form, both arms will be given the link to freely available brief unconscious bias training module. The module that will be used has been approved by the MA Medical Society and is eligible for CME, which can be applied towards the unconscious bias training CMEs required for MA medical license renewal as of June 1, 2022. Upon completion of the unconscious bias module, providers in the intervention arm will meet with study team members to discuss their individuation countermeasure intervention and to view the brief presentation with a study team member about individuation. At least one month after providers take the IATs, the study team will begin the process of recording 8-10 provider-patient interactions within each providers' practice. This will occur both at MGH and BWH rheumatology clinic sites. Providers will also be immediately informed before a patient encounter that will be recorded and will have the opportunity to decline. To record, a digital voice recorder will be used (placed in the room by a research team member with both patient and provider aware, and collected immediately following the encounter), and all data will be transferred to the project-specific MGB secure drive at the end of each day and then deleted from the device. These files will be transcribed verbatim using an MGB-approved vendor and all identifiable information will be removed. After 6 months, which is the estimate for recruitment time, providers will be asked to repeat the IATs. Patients who consent to participate will be asked to have one clinical encounter with their provider recorded (preferably the next appointment) and then to complete a set of baseline surveys following that encounter including demographics, social determinants of health, everyday discrimination experiences, satisfaction with care, patient trust in the medical profession, patient perception of care centeredness and medication adherence. The investigators will also collect data from the patients' charts. These data include: demographics, social determinants of health, comorbidities/diagnoses, quality metrics related to their rheumatic disease, lab results, preventive care use (including immunizations), healthcare utilization (including ED visits, hospitalizations, outpatient visits and appointment no shows), medication use (including use of contraception as a quality metric), and medication refill data over the 6 months following the date of the recorded encounter. The investigators will review the note from the date of the encounter and determine whether the individuation statement was documented in the intervention group. For patients with lupus, osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, or RA seen at least once by participating providers in both the intervention and control arm, the study team will examine the charts of patients during the 6 months following provider enrollment, beginning 1 month after the date the provider takes the IATs. The study teams estimates that this will include approximately 1000 patients. The study team plan to collect demographics, social determinants of health, comorbidities/diagnoses, quality metrics related to their rheumatic disease, lab results, preventive care use (including immunizations), healthcare utilization (including ED visits, hospitalizations, outpatient visits and appointment no shows), medication use (including use of contraception as a quality metric), and medication refill data over the 6 months following the date of the recorded encounter. The investigators will also see if any of the individuation statements (smart phrases) were used for patients not specifically enrolled in the intervention. At the end of the study, all data will be deidentified and analyzed in aggregate. Results in aggregate will be presented in an end-of-study Grand Rounds to both the BWH and MGH rheumatology divisions (there is a combined grand rounds). The team will also provide a list of online resources about implicit bias. For patients, after the completion of the 3-month adherence assessment, the study team will provide them with a score report indicating what their scores on each of the respective surveys mean.
Interventions
Providers in the intervention are will be instructed to watch a brief set of freely available educational lessons and then they will meet with study team members to discuss their individuation countermeasure intervention. Providers will be given a choice of several individuation-related questions to better understand the unique characteristics of each patient. Once the provider decides on his/her choice phrases, the research team will assist with the development of a smart phrase (also called dot phrase) to allow them to incorporate this into a note. Once a week, providers in the intervention arm will receive an email reminding them to incorporate this question and the documentation into their encounters.
Providers in the comparator arm will be given the same implicit bias educational modules to complete.
Sponsors
Study design
Intervention model description
The investigators plan to enroll 20 rheumatologists and a maximum of 200 patients randomized into two different control arms. The providers will observe the outcomes in each separate arm as well as evaluate the results of both arms to each other.
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* Providers: Providers will be male or female adult rheumatologists with \>=1 clinical sessions/week at BWH/FH or MGH main campus and satellite clinic sites. The providers will aim to include a range of provider ages and years in practice. * Patients: The study team will include male and female patients of the participating providers who are able to provide consent, English-speaking, \>=18 years old, Black or African American or insured by Medicaid/Mass Health (as a proxy for low socioeconomic status), have a diagnosis of SLE, osteoarthritis, or inflammatory arthritis which includes RA (or referred to rheumatology because of high suspicion for these conditions), and have been seen \<2 times in the past year by the provider.
Exclusion criteria
* Providers: Drs. Feldman and Schoenfeld (and their respective patients) will be excluded from this study. * Patients: The providers will exclude patients who incarcerated or unable to consent. The providers will exclude any patient from our searches who has opted out of research.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Percent of Quality Metrics Achieved | 30 days | Documented receipt of high-quality care at the appointment or within 30 days of the appointment. The quality metrics for Lupus and RA include but are not limited to: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) initiation and Folic acid if receiving methotrexate, respectively. These items will be added together to form a score and the number of items completed out of the total will be the primary outcome measure compared across groups. The denominator is the patient-specific quality metrics they are eligible for and the numerator is the number achieved. The final percent ranges from 0-100 (with 100 indicating that 100% of the quality metrics that the patient was eligible for were met). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Patient Satisfaction | At time of appointment (baseline) during which audiorecording took place, reflecting the experience at the appointment immediately preceding survey completion. | Differences in patient satisfaction score, comparing the intervention to non-intervention group. Score range from 20-70. Higher scores indicate greater patient satisfaction. |
| Everyday Discrimination Scale | A time of the appointment when audiorecording took place (baseline) asking patients to describe the degree to which each item occurs in their day-to-day life. | Reflects experiences of everyday discrimination, comparing the intervention to non-intervention group. Score range is 0-40. Higher scores indicate a greater amount of discrimination encountered. |
| Adherence | 3 months after the start of the intervention | Adherence score (for rheumatology medications), comparing the 3-month adherence score to baseline for the intervention to non-intervention group at three months following the encounter date. Score range is 0-100 with zero being the lowest adherence, and 100 being the best. |
| Provider Communication: Positive Emotion Words | One time baseline evaluation from the transcript of the audiorecording of the encounter of the patient with their rheumatologist | Provider communication will be measured using the recorded transcripts and compared between arms. We compared the mean (SD) of provider positive emotion words expressed during a clinical encounter. Measured only for patients enrolled in the study who had their appointment audiorecorded. |
| Patient Trust | One time baseline evaluation after the appointment reflecting experiences at the immediately preceding appointment. | Patient trust in their providers, comparing the intervention to non-intervention group. Responses are summed (range 5-25) with higher scores indicating more trust. |
| Incidence Rate Ratio of Emergency Departments Visits | 6 months following the encounter of interest | Comparison of incidence rate of Emergency Department visits between patients of providers in the intervention compared to the control arms. |
| Perception of Patient Centeredness | At time of appointment (baseline) during which audiorecording took place, reflecting the experience at the appointment immediately preceding survey completion. | Differences in perception of patient centeredness comparing the intervention to non-intervention group. Higher scores indicate less patient-centered experiences. 4-point Likert scale, score range from 14-56. |
| Incidence Rate Ratio of Hospitalizations | 6 months after physician encounter | Comparison of incidence rate of hospitalizations between patients of providers in the intervention compared to the control arms. |
| Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Socioeconomic Status Stereotyping | Baseline compared to 6 months after the start of the intervention. | Change in provider IAT scores pre and post intervention. IAT scores range from -1 to 1. A score of 0 indicates no strong implicit bias. A score of 1 is pro-high socioeconomic status bias and a score of -1 is pro-low socioeconomic status bias. |
| Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Race Implicit Bias | Baseline compared to 6 months after the start of the intervention. | Change in provider IAT scores pre and post intervention. IAT scores range from -1 to 1. A score of 0 indicates no strong implicit bias. A score of 1 is pro-White bias and a score of -1 is pro-Black bias. |
| Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Race Stereotyping. | Baseline compared to 6 months after the start of the intervention. | Change in provider IAT scores pre and post intervention. IAT scores range from -1 to 1. A score of 0 indicates no strong implicit bias. A score of 1 is pro-White stereotyping and a score of -1 is pro-Black stereotyping. |
| Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Socioeconomic Status Bias | Baseline compared to 6 months after the start of the intervention. | . Change in provider IAT scores pre and post intervention. IAT scores range from -1 to 1. A score of 0 indicates no strong implicit bias. A score of 1 is pro-high socioeconomic status bias and a score of -1 is pro-low socioeconomic status bias. |
| Incidence Rate Ratio of Outpatient Visits. | 6 months following the encounter of interest | Comparison of incidence rate of outpatient visits between patients of providers in the intervention compared to the control arms. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Rheumatologists were recruited from 6/17/2022-12/12/2023 at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital.
Pre-assignment details
Rheumatologists took Implicit Association Tests and were provided with implicit bias training and then randomized to either the control or intervention arm.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Arm 1: Individuation Intervention Plus Implicit Bias Education: Rheumatologists Rheumatologists watched implicit bias training modules and then were instructed to incorporate an individuation strategy into each of their clinical encounters. | 10 |
| Arm 2: Implicit Bias Education Only: Rheumatologists Rheumatologists watched implicit bias training modules. | 9 |
| Patients of Arm 1- Chart Review Only Patients of providers in Arm 1 who had their electronic health records reviewed but did not enroll/complete surveys | 79 |
| Patients of Arm 2- Chart Review Only Patients of providers in Arm 2 who had their electronic health records reviewed but did not enroll/complete surveys | 50 |
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers With Audiorecordings and Surveys Patients of providers in Arm 1 who enrolled for an audiorecorded encounter and surveys | 20 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers With Audiorecordings and Surveys Patients of providers in Arm 2 who enrolled for an audiorecorded encounter and surveys | 27 |
| Total | 195 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Patients of Arm 2 Providers With Audiorecordings and Surveys | Total | Arm 1: Individuation Intervention Plus Implicit Bias Education: Rheumatologists | Arm 2: Implicit Bias Education Only: Rheumatologists | Patients of Arm 1- Chart Review Only | Patients of Arm 2- Chart Review Only | Patients of Arm 1 Providers With Audiorecordings and Surveys |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 4 Participants | 47 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 26 Participants | 12 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 23 Participants | 148 Participants | 9 Participants | 8 Participants | 53 Participants | 38 Participants | 17 Participants |
| Baseline Medication Adherence | 58.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 18.8 | 53.8 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 19.5 | — | — | — | — | 49.3 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 19.6 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 5 Participants | 29 Participants | 0 Participants | 3 Participants | 9 Participants | 10 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 21 Participants | 158 Participants | 9 Participants | 6 Participants | 67 Participants | 38 Participants | 17 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants | 8 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 3 Participants | 2 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Provider-Only Implicit Association Test- Race Bias | — | -0.42 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.54 | -0.46 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.54 | -0.37 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.57 | — | — | — |
| Provider-Only Implicit Association Test - Socioeconomic status bias | — | 0.65 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.47 | 0.75 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.55 | 0.54 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.35 | — | — | — |
| Provider-Only Implicit Association Test - Socioeconomic status stereotyping | — | 0.51 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.54 | 0.54 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 | 0.48 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.49 | — | — | — |
| Provider-Only Implicit Association Tests - Race stereotyping | — | -0.20 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 | -0.13 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.76 | -0.29 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.37 | — | — | — |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants | 4 Participants | 1 Participants | 2 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 23 Participants | 136 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 61 Participants | 37 Participants | 14 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 0 Participants | 3 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 2 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 14 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 6 Participants | 5 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 4 Participants | 37 Participants | 8 Participants | 6 Participants | 10 Participants | 6 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 27 participants | 248 participants | 10 participants | 9 participants | 79 participants | 50 participants | 20 participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Female | 17 Participants | 128 Participants | 5 Participants | 5 Participants | 53 Participants | 37 Participants | 11 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Male | 2 Participants | 25 Participants | 5 Participants | 4 Participants | 6 Participants | 4 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Unknown | 8 Participants | 42 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 20 Participants | 9 Participants | 5 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk | EG004 affected / at risk | EG005 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 10 | 0 / 9 | 0 / 101 | 0 / 81 | 0 / 20 | 0 / 27 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 10 | 0 / 9 | 0 / 101 | 0 / 81 | 0 / 20 | 0 / 27 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 10 | 0 / 9 | 0 / 101 | 0 / 81 | 0 / 20 | 0 / 27 |
Outcome results
Percent of Quality Metrics Achieved
Documented receipt of high-quality care at the appointment or within 30 days of the appointment. The quality metrics for Lupus and RA include but are not limited to: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) initiation and Folic acid if receiving methotrexate, respectively. These items will be added together to form a score and the number of items completed out of the total will be the primary outcome measure compared across groups. The denominator is the patient-specific quality metrics they are eligible for and the numerator is the number achieved. The final percent ranges from 0-100 (with 100 indicating that 100% of the quality metrics that the patient was eligible for were met).
Time frame: 30 days
Population: Patients of providers randomized to Arm 1 or Arm 2, which includes the eligible patients in the chart-review groups, and those who also participated in the audiorecordings and surveys
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Percent of Quality Metrics Achieved | 62.14 Percent of Quality Metrics Achieved | Standard Deviation 13.46 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Percent of Quality Metrics Achieved | 54.31 Percent of Quality Metrics Achieved | Standard Deviation 14.46 |
Adherence
Adherence score (for rheumatology medications), comparing the 3-month adherence score to baseline for the intervention to non-intervention group at three months following the encounter date. Score range is 0-100 with zero being the lowest adherence, and 100 being the best.
Time frame: 3 months after the start of the intervention
Population: Subset of patients in the audiorecording/survey arms who returned completed 3 month follow up adherence surveys.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Adherence | 54.96 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 14.15 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Adherence | 55.99 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 19.44 |
Everyday Discrimination Scale
Reflects experiences of everyday discrimination, comparing the intervention to non-intervention group. Score range is 0-40. Higher scores indicate a greater amount of discrimination encountered.
Time frame: A time of the appointment when audiorecording took place (baseline) asking patients to describe the degree to which each item occurs in their day-to-day life.
Population: Subset of patients who consented to participate in audiorecordings and returned completed surveys.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Everyday Discrimination Scale | 0.96 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.84 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Everyday Discrimination Scale | 1.16 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.93 |
Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Race Implicit Bias
Change in provider IAT scores pre and post intervention. IAT scores range from -1 to 1. A score of 0 indicates no strong implicit bias. A score of 1 is pro-White bias and a score of -1 is pro-Black bias.
Time frame: Baseline compared to 6 months after the start of the intervention.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Race Implicit Bias | -0.27 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.47 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Race Implicit Bias | 0.12 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.44 |
Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Race Stereotyping.
Change in provider IAT scores pre and post intervention. IAT scores range from -1 to 1. A score of 0 indicates no strong implicit bias. A score of 1 is pro-White stereotyping and a score of -1 is pro-Black stereotyping.
Time frame: Baseline compared to 6 months after the start of the intervention.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Race Stereotyping. | -0.25 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.61 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Race Stereotyping. | -0.39 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.5 |
Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Socioeconomic Status Bias
. Change in provider IAT scores pre and post intervention. IAT scores range from -1 to 1. A score of 0 indicates no strong implicit bias. A score of 1 is pro-high socioeconomic status bias and a score of -1 is pro-low socioeconomic status bias.
Time frame: Baseline compared to 6 months after the start of the intervention.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Socioeconomic Status Bias | 0.48 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.37 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Socioeconomic Status Bias | 0.60 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Socioeconomic Status Stereotyping
Change in provider IAT scores pre and post intervention. IAT scores range from -1 to 1. A score of 0 indicates no strong implicit bias. A score of 1 is pro-high socioeconomic status bias and a score of -1 is pro-low socioeconomic status bias.
Time frame: Baseline compared to 6 months after the start of the intervention.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Socioeconomic Status Stereotyping | 0.50 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.37 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores- Socioeconomic Status Stereotyping | 0.15 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.5 |
Incidence Rate Ratio of Emergency Departments Visits
Comparison of incidence rate of Emergency Department visits between patients of providers in the intervention compared to the control arms.
Time frame: 6 months following the encounter of interest
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Incidence Rate Ratio of Emergency Departments Visits | 0.398 number of ED visits | Standard Deviation 0.971 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Incidence Rate Ratio of Emergency Departments Visits | 0.390 number of ED visits | Standard Deviation 0.934 |
Incidence Rate Ratio of Hospitalizations
Comparison of incidence rate of hospitalizations between patients of providers in the intervention compared to the control arms.
Time frame: 6 months after physician encounter
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Incidence Rate Ratio of Hospitalizations | 0.316 number of hospitalizations | Standard Deviation 1.06 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Incidence Rate Ratio of Hospitalizations | 0.779 number of hospitalizations | Standard Deviation 0.354 |
Incidence Rate Ratio of Outpatient Visits.
Comparison of incidence rate of outpatient visits between patients of providers in the intervention compared to the control arms.
Time frame: 6 months following the encounter of interest
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Incidence Rate Ratio of Outpatient Visits. | 7.34 Number of outpatient visits | Standard Deviation 6.22 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Incidence Rate Ratio of Outpatient Visits. | 6.05 Number of outpatient visits | Standard Deviation 5.88 |
Patient Satisfaction
Differences in patient satisfaction score, comparing the intervention to non-intervention group. Score range from 20-70. Higher scores indicate greater patient satisfaction.
Time frame: At time of appointment (baseline) during which audiorecording took place, reflecting the experience at the appointment immediately preceding survey completion.
Population: Subset of patients who consented to participate in audiorecordings and returned completed surveys.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Patient Satisfaction | 50.4 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Patient Satisfaction | 51.5 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8 |
Patient Trust
Patient trust in their providers, comparing the intervention to non-intervention group. Responses are summed (range 5-25) with higher scores indicating more trust.
Time frame: One time baseline evaluation after the appointment reflecting experiences at the immediately preceding appointment.
Population: Subset of patients who consented to participate in audiorecordings and returned completed surveys.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Patient Trust | 16.4 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Patient Trust | 17.6 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5 |
Perception of Patient Centeredness
Differences in perception of patient centeredness comparing the intervention to non-intervention group. Higher scores indicate less patient-centered experiences. 4-point Likert scale, score range from 14-56.
Time frame: At time of appointment (baseline) during which audiorecording took place, reflecting the experience at the appointment immediately preceding survey completion.
Population: Subset of patients who consented to participate in audiorecordings and returned completed surveys.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Perception of Patient Centeredness | 27.5 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Perception of Patient Centeredness | 23.4 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 7 |
Provider Communication: Positive Emotion Words
Provider communication will be measured using the recorded transcripts and compared between arms. We compared the mean (SD) of provider positive emotion words expressed during a clinical encounter. Measured only for patients enrolled in the study who had their appointment audiorecorded.
Time frame: One time baseline evaluation from the transcript of the audiorecording of the encounter of the patient with their rheumatologist
Population: Patients who participated in audiorecordings and had transcripts for analysis.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients of Arm 1 Providers | Provider Communication: Positive Emotion Words | 0.99 Number of words | Standard Deviation 0.5 |
| Patients of Arm 2 Providers | Provider Communication: Positive Emotion Words | 0.66 Number of words | Standard Deviation 0.33 |