Provider Recommendations in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty: An Analysis of Audio-Recorded Discussions about Vitamin D

J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Aug;31(8):909-17. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3667-5. Epub 2016 Mar 23.

Abstract

Background: Little is known about how providers communicate recommendations when scientific uncertainty exists.

Objectives: To compare provider recommendations to those in the scientific literature, with a focus on whether uncertainty was communicated.

Design: Qualitative (inductive systematic content analysis) and quantitative analysis of previously collected audio-recorded provider-patient office visits.

Participants: Sixty-one providers and a socio-economically diverse convenience sample of 603 of their patients from outpatient community- and academic-based primary care, integrative medicine, and complementary and alternative medicine provider offices in Southern California.

Main measures: Comparison of provider information-giving about vitamin D to professional guidelines and scientific information for which conflicting recommendations or insufficient scientific evidence exists; certainty with which information was conveyed.

Results: Ninety-two (15.3 %) of 603 visit discussions touched upon issues related to vitamin D testing, management and benefits. Vitamin D deficiency screening was discussed with 23 (25 %) patients, the definition of vitamin D deficiency with 21 (22.8 %), the optimal range for vitamin D levels with 26 (28.3 %), vitamin D supplementation dosing with 50 (54.3 %), and benefits of supplementation with 46 (50 %). For each of the professional guidelines/scientific information examined, providers conveyed information that deviated from professional guidelines and the existing scientific evidence. Of 166 statements made about vitamin D in this study, providers conveyed 160 (96.4 %) with certainty, without mention of any equivocal or contradictory evidence in the scientific literature. No uncertainty was mentioned when vitamin D dosing was discussed, even when recommended dosing was higher than guideline recommendations.

Conclusions and relevance: Providers convey the vast majority of information and recommendations about vitamin D with certainty, even though the scientific literature contains inconsistent recommendations and declarations of inadequate evidence. Not communicating uncertainty blurs the contrast between evidence-based recommendations and those without evidence. Providers should explore best practices for involving patients in decision-making by acknowledging the uncertainty behind their recommendations.

Keywords: complementary and alternative medicine; dietary supplements; provider–patient relations; qualitative research methods; scientific uncertainty; vitamin D.

Publication types

  • Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Dietary Supplements
  • Female
  • Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Patient Education as Topic / methods*
  • Patient Education as Topic / standards
  • Physician-Patient Relations*
  • Physicians, Primary Care* / standards
  • Tape Recording / methods*
  • Uncertainty*
  • Vitamin D Deficiency / blood
  • Vitamin D Deficiency / diagnosis
  • Vitamin D Deficiency / diet therapy
  • Vitamin D* / blood

Substances

  • Vitamin D