Live Notes from @HarvardMed Bioethics: Authors Jerome Groopman, MD & Pamela Hartzband, MD, discuss Your Medical Mind
Writer: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
As part of the Harvard Medical School Series on Bioethics: author, clinician and professor Jerome Groopman, MD and Pamel Harzband, MD gave an online discussion of their book “Your Medical Mind”, a part of Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics Program’s Critical Reading of Contemporary Books in Bioethics Series. The Contemporary Authors in Bioethics series brings together authors and the community to discuss books that explore new and developing topics in the field. This was held as an online Zoom meeting on March 26, 2020 at 5 pm EST and could be followed on Twitter using #HarvardBioethics. A recording of the discussion will be made available at the Harvard Med School Center for Bioethics.
Available at Amazon: From the Amazon book description:
An entirely new way to make the best medical decisions.
Making the right medical decisions is harder than ever. We are overwhelmed by information from all sides—whether our doctors’ recommendations, dissenting experts, confusing statistics, or testimonials on the Internet. Now Doctors Groopman and Hartzband reveal that each of us has a “medical mind,” a highly individual approach to weighing the risks and benefits of treatments. Are you a minimalist or a maximalist, a believer or a doubter, do you look for natural healing or the latest technology? The authors weave vivid narratives of real patients with insights from recent research to demonstrate the power of the medical mind. After reading this groundbreaking book, you will know how to arrive at choices that serve you best.
Doctors Groopman and Hartzband began the discussion with a recapping medical research studies and medical panels, which had reported conflicting results or reversal of recommendations, respectively. These included studies on the benefits of statin therapy in cholesterol management, studies on whether or not Vitamin D therapy is beneficial for postmenopausal women, the ongoing controversy on the frequency with which women should get mammograms, as well as the predictive value of Prostate Specific Antigen and prostate cancer screening. The authors singled out the research reports and medical panels reviewing the data on PSA in which the same medical panel first came out in support of using PSA levels to screen for prostate cancer and then later, after reconvening, recommended that PSA was not useful for mass screenings for prostate cancer.
In fact, both authors were
completed surprised of the diametrically opposed views within or between panels given similar data presented to those medical professionals.
The authors then asked a question: Why would the same medical panel come to a reversal of their decision and more, importantly, why are there such disparate conclusions from the same medical data sets, leading to varied clinical decision-making.
In general, Drs. Groopman and Hartzband asked how do physicians and patients make their decisions?
To answer this they looked at studies that Daniel Bernouli had conducted to model the economic behaviors of risk aversion in the marketplace. Bernouli’s theorem correlated market expectation with probability and outcomes
expectation = probability x utility of outcome
However, in medicine, one can measure probability (or risk) but it is very hard to measure utility (which is the value or worth of the outcome).
For example, they gave an example if a person was born blind but offered a risky to regain sight, the individual values their quality of life from their own perspective and might feel that, as their life is worthwhile as it is, they would not undergo a risky procedure. However a person who had suddenly lost their sight might value sight more, and be willing to undergo a risky procedure.
Three methods are used to put a value on utility or outcome worth with regards to medical decisions
- linear scale (life or death; from 0 to 1)
- time trade off: e.g. how much longer do I have to live
- standard gamble: let’s try it
All of these methods however are flawed because one doesn’t know their future medical condition (e.g. new information on the disease) and people values and perceptions change over time.
An example of choice of methods the medical community uses to make decisions include:
- In the United Kingdom, their system uses a time trade off method to determine value in order to determine appropriate course of action which may inadvertently, result in rationed care
- in the United States, the medical community uses the time trade off to determine cost effectiveness
Therefore Drs. Groopman and Harztband, after conducing multiple interviews with patients and physicians were able to categorize medical decision making based on groups of mindsets
- Maximalist: Proactive behavior, wants to stay ahead of the curve
- Minimalist: less intervention is more; more hesitant to try any suggested therapy
- Naturalist: more prone to choose natural based therapies or home remedies
- Tech Oriented: wants to try the latest therapies and more apt to trust in branded and FDA approved therapeutics
- Believer: trust in suggestions by physician; physician trusts medical panels suggestions
- Doubter: naturally inquisitive and more prone to investigate risk benefits of any suggested therapy
The authors also identified many Cognitive Traps that both physicians and patients may fall into including:
- Relative versus Absolute Numbers: for instance putting emphasis on one number or the other without regard to context; like looking at disease numbers without taking into consideration individual risk
- Availability: availability or lack of available information; they noticed if you fall in this trap depends on whether you are a Minimalist or Maximalist
- Framing: for example when people talk to others about their conditions and hear stories about others treatments, conditions .. mainly anecdotal evidence
Stories can be helpful but they sometimes increase our overestimation of risk or benefit so framing the information is very important for both the patient as well as the physician (even doctors as patients)
Both authors have noticed a big shift in US to minimalism probably because of the rising costs of healthcare.
How do these mindsets affect the patient-physician relationship?
A University of Michigan study revealed that patients who would be characterized as maximalists pushed their physicians to do more therapy and were more prone to seek outside advice.
Physicians need to understand and listen to their patients during the patients’s first visit and determine what medical mindset that this patient has.
About the authors:
Jerome Groopman, M.D. is the Dina and Raphael Recanati Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Chief of Experimental Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and one of the world’s leading researchers in cancer and AIDS. He is a staff writer for The New Yorker and has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal,The Washington Post and The New Republic. He is author of The Measure of Our Days (1997), Second Opinions (2000), Anatomy of Hope (2004), How Doctors Think (2007), and the recently released, Your Medical Mind.
Dr. Pamela Hartzband is an Assistant Professor at the Harvard Medical School and Attending Physician in the Division of Endocrinology at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. She specializes in disorders of the thyroid and pituitary glands. A magna cum laude graduate of Radcliffe College, Harvard University, she received her M.D. from Harvard Medical School. She served her internship and residency in internal medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital, and her specialty fellowships in endocrinology and metabolism at UCLA.
More articles on BioEthics and Patient experiences in this Online Open Access Journal Include:
Ethics Behind Genetic Testing in Breast Cancer: A Webinar by Laura Carfang of survivingbreastcancer.org
Tweets and Re-Tweets by @Pharma_BI and @AVIVA1950 at 2019 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference: Consuming Genetics: Ethical and Legal Considerations of New Technologies, Friday, May 17, 2019 from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM EDT @Harvard_Law
Innovation + Technology = Good Patient Experience
Drivers of Patient Experience
Factors in Patient Experience
Patient Experience Survey
Please also see our offering on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B076HGB6MZ
“The VOICES of Patients, Hospital CEOs, Health Care Providers, Caregivers and Families: Personal Experience with Critical Care and Invasive Medical Procedures,”
2012pharmaceutical
Aashir Awan, Phd
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
amnondanzig1724
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
lmulligan13gmailcom
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
pkandala
Rosalind Codrington, PhD
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
zraviv06
zs22