Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Factors Affecting Physicians’ Responses to Patients’ Requests for Antidepressants: Focus Group Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The ways in which patients’ requests for antidepressants affect physicians’ prescribing behavior are poorly understood.

Objective

To describe physicians’ affective and cognitive responses to standardized patients’ (SPs) requests for antidepressants, as well as the attitudinal and contextual factors influencing prescribing behavior.

Design

Focus group interviews and brief demographic questionnaires.

Participants

Twenty-two primary care physicians in 6 focus groups; all had participated in a prior RCT of the influence of patients’ requests on physicians’ prescribing.

Measurements

Iterative review of interview transcripts, involving qualitative coding and thematic analysis.

Results

Physicians participating in the focus groups were frequently unaware of and denied the degree to which their thinking was biased by patient requests, but were able to recognize such biases after facilitated reflection. Common affective responses included annoyance and empathy. Common cognitive reactions resulted in further diagnostic inquiry or in acquiescing to the patient’s demands to save time or build the patient–clinician relationship. Patients’ requests for medication prompted the participants to err on the side of overtreating versus careful review of clinical indications. Lack of time and participants’ attitudes—toward the role of the patient and the pharmaceutical ads—also influenced their responses, prompting them to interpret patient requests as diagnostic clues or opportunities for efficiency.

Conclusions

This study provides a taxonomy of affective and cognitive responses to patients’ requests for medications and the underlying attitudes and contextual factors influencing them. Improved capacity for moment-to-moment self-awareness during clinical reasoning processes may increase the appropriateness of prescribing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hollon M. Direct to consumer advertising: a haphazard approach to health promotion. JAMA. 2005;293:2030–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Holmer AF. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising builds bridges between patient and physicians. JAMA. 1999;281:380–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lipsky MS, Taylor CA. The opinions and experiences of family physicians regarding direct-to-consumer advertising. J Fam Pract. 1997;45:495–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Young D. Studies show drug ads influence prescription decisions, drug costs. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2002;59:14, 16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Almasi EA, Stafford RS, Kravitz RL, Mansfield PR. What are the public health effects of direct-to-consumer drug advertising? PLoS Med. 2006;3:e145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bell RA, Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. The educational value of consumer-targeted prescription drug print advertising. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:1092–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoffman JR, Wilkes MS. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs: an idea whose time should not come [editorial]. BMJ. 1999;318:1301–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Weissman JS, Blumenthal D, Silk AJ, et al. Physicians report on patient encounters involving direct-to-consumer-advertising. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;Suppl Web Exclusives:W4-219–33.

  9. Wilkes MS, Bell RA, Kravitz RL. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: trends, impact, and implications. Health Aff. 2000;19(2):110–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Tremmel J, Welch HG. Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs: what are Americans being sold? Lancet. 2001;358:1141–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Young HN, Paterniti DA, Bell RA, Kravitz RL. Do prescription drug advertisements educate the public? The consumer answers. Drug Inf J. 2005;39:25–33.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Feldman MD, Franks P, Epstein RM, Franz CE, Kravitz RL. Do patient requests for antidepressants enhance or hinder physicians’ evaluation of depression? A randomized controlled trial. Med Care. 2006;44:1107–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kravitz RL, Epstein RM, Feldman MD, et al. Influence of patients’ requests for direct-to-consumer advertised antidepressants: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 293(16);2005:1995–2002.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mintzes B, Barer ML, Kravitz RL, et al. How does direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) affect prescribing? A survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCA. Can Med Assoc J. 2003;169(5):405–12.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gemperli MP. Rethinking the role of the learned intermediary: the effect of direct-to-consumer advertising on litigation. JAMA. 2000;284:2241.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Glazer BG, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: Aldine; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Miller WL, Crabtree BF. Qualitative analysis: how to begin making sense. Fam Pract Res J. 1994;14(3):289–97.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Morgan DL, Krueger RA. The Focus Group Kit. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Morse JM. The significance of saturation (editorial). Qual Health Res. 5(2);1995:147–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE, Jr. Assessing the effects of physician–patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care. 1989a;27:S110–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE, Jr. Impact of the doctor–patient relationship on the outcomes of chronic disease. In: Stewart M, Roter D, eds. Communicating with Patients in Medical Practice. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1989b:228–45.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Roter DL. Patient participation in the patient–provider interaction: the effects of patient question asking on the quality of interaction, satisfaction and compliance. Health Educ Monogr. 1997;5:281–315.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Butow P, Devine R, Boyer M, Pendlebury S, Jackson M, Tattersall MH. Cancer consultation preparation package: changing patients but not physicians is not enough. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4401–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mangione-Smith R, McGlynn EA, Elliott MN, Krogstad P, Brook RH. The relationship between perceived parental expectations and pediatrician antimicrobial prescribing behavior. Pediatrics. 1999;103:711–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Deyo RA, Diehl AK. Patient satisfaction with medical care for low-back pain. Spine. 1986;11:28–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kahneman D, Tversky A. On the psychology of prediction. Psychol Rev. 1973;80:237–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Damasio AR. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Damasio AR. The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dreyfus HL. On the Internet (Thinking in Action). New York: Routledge; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stanovich KE. West RF. Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behav Brain Sci. 2000;23(5):645–65; discussion 665–726.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kahneman D. A perspective on judgement and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol. 2003;58(9):697–720.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bordage G. Why did I miss the diagnosis? Some cognitive explanations and educational implications. Acad Med. 1999;74(10 Suppl):S138–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Chang RW, Bordage G, Connell KJ. The importance of early problem representation during case presentations. Acad Med. 1998;73(10 Suppl):S109–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Charlin B, Roy L, Brailovsky C, Goulet F, Van Der Vleuten C. The script concordance test: a tool to assess the reflective clinician. Teach Learn Med. 2000;12(4):189–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med. 1980;302(20):1109–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ. Physician decision making and cardiac risk: effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006;12(3):179–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bauchner H, Simpson L, Chessare J. Changing physician behaviour. Arch Dis Child. 2001;84:459–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Epstein RM. Mindful practice. JAMA. 1999;282:833–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Wilson TD, Centerbar DB, Brekke N. Mental contamination and the debiasing problem. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York, NY: Cambridge; 2002:185–200.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Camille S. Cipri and Judy Lardner for their assistance with recruitment and project coordination, and to all the physicians who took the time out of their schedules to participate in these focus groups.

This research was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health 5 R01 MH064683-03, RL Kravitz, PI.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleksey Tentler MS.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tentler, A., Silberman, J., Paterniti, D.A. et al. Factors Affecting Physicians’ Responses to Patients’ Requests for Antidepressants: Focus Group Study. J GEN INTERN MED 23, 51–57 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0441-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0441-8

KEY WORDS

Navigation