Karen Scherr, an MD PhD student working with me, just published a paper showing that physicians don’t always give patients objective advice about the pros and cons of robotic surgery. Here is a news story on her work:
Duke University research found that doctors are more enthusiastic about treatments that are readily available, calling into question whether the doctors are recommending the best treatment, or just the one more readily available.
“Patients need accurate and unbiased information about their treatment choices, regardless of what is available where their appointment is taking place,” said Fuqua School of Business Professor Peter Ubel. “It’s the only way they can make fully informed decisions.”
Ubel’s research, published in the journal Health Communications found that robotic surgery was described in more positive terms to prostate cancer patients at hospitals where it was available than at facilities where it was not.
Importantly, the research looked at four Veterans Affairs medical centers. Because VA physicians are salaried employees, the researchers could rule out financial incentives as a factor in how the treatments were described. Other research has linked surgeons with procedures on which they could gain financially, so ruling that out bolsters the findings.
Although researchers found a correlation, they didn’t immediately draw a conclusion of nefarious activity among doctors. Instead, they drew a different conclusion.
“We found that physicians describe robotic prostatectomy more positively when it’s available,” said Karen Scherr, a Duke M.D./Ph.D. student who helped with the research. “Importantly, this seems to be happening because of concern about patients’ emotions when they find robotic surgery isn’t available. I don’t think physicians are doing this for any malicious reason. It’s just very difficult to tell people about something good if it’s not available, and if it is available you want to tell people it’s good.”
To read the full article, please visit the Triangle Business Journal.