Literature DB >> 16137813

Evaluations of care by adults following a denial of an advertisement-related prescription drug request: the role of expectations, symptom severity, and physician communication style.

Mansi B Shah1, John P Bentley, David J McCaffrey.   

Abstract

As patients continue to take a more active role in their health care, an understanding of patient requests of health care providers, including what happens when requests are not fulfilled, is becoming more important. Although its merits have been debated, direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs generates patient requests. The objective of this study was to assess the influence of physician communication style, respondents' expectations of receiving a requested prescription, and perceived symptom severity on respondents' evaluations of care following a physician denial of a prescription drug request stimulated by direct-to-consumer advertising. A 2 x 2 x 2, between-subjects experimental design was used. The respondents were made up of employees of the University of Mississippi. Physician communication style, respondents' expectations, and respondents' perceived symptom severity were manipulated using vignettes. Respondents' post-visit evaluations of care were assessed by measuring trust in the physician, visit-based satisfaction with the physician, and commitment toward the physician. Factorial analysis of variance procedures for a three-way design were used to test the hypotheses and assess the research questions. Manipulation checks suggested that the independent variables were appropriately manipulated. No significant first-order or second-order interactions were noted in any of the analyses. Post-visit evaluations of care were significantly associated with physician communication style (a partnership response led to better evaluations of care). There were no significant effects of either prior expectation of request fulfillment or perceived symptom severity. However, non-significant trends in mean scores suggested a potential role of these variables in the evaluation process following request denial. The manner in which a physician communicates with an individual is an important determinant of the evaluation of care following the denial of a request. The results suggest that health care providers attempting to minimize the effect of request denials on patient evaluations should make an effort to involve the patient in the decision-making process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16137813     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  5 in total

1.  Getting to "no": strategies primary care physicians use to deny patient requests.

Authors:  Debora A Paterniti; Tonya L Fancher; Camille S Cipri; Stefan Timmermans; John Heritage; Richard L Kravitz
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-02-22

2.  Ranking of patient and surgeons' perspectives for endpoints in randomized controlled trials--lessons learned from the POVATI trial [ISRCTN 60734227].

Authors:  Lars Fischer; Andreas Deckert; Markus K Diener; Johannes B Zimmermann; Markus W Büchler; Christoph M Seiler
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 3.  Should health care providers be accountable for patients' care experiences?

Authors:  Rebecca Anhang Price; Marc N Elliott; Paul D Cleary; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ron D Hays
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-11-22       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Antidepressant medication adherence: a study of primary care patients.

Authors:  Marijo B Tamburrino; Rollin W Nagel; Mangeet K Chahal; Denis J Lynch
Journal:  Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2009

5.  A decade of controversy: balancing policy with evidence in the regulation of prescription drug advertising.

Authors:  Dominick L Frosch; David Grande; Derjung M Tarn; Richard L Kravitz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 9.308

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.