Donald J Kiesler1, Stephen M Auerbach. 1. Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Psychology, 808 W. Franklin Street, Box 842018, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A comprehensive review was conducted of the theoretical and empirical work that addresses the preference-match strategy in physician-patient communication. METHODS: Searches were conducted on Medline, PsychINFO, InFoTrac One File Plus, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertation Abstracts through 2004. The following keywords were used: patient preferred and received information; patient preferred and actualized treatment decision-making; patient-physician beliefs in shared decision-making; patient-physician match, fit, or concordance; reciprocal relationship or mutuality; doctor-patient affiliation, control, relationship; match/fit between patient and physician in affiliation, control, or relationship. RESULTS: Findings revealed varying degrees of support for the positive effects of matching patients' preferred levels of information, decisional control, and consultative interpersonal behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Findings justify not only continued but expanded research efforts in this area that would incorporate recommended changes in research design and implementation. PRACTICE AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS: Assessment strategies and match interventions are discussed that, if evidence continues to be supportive, might routinely optimize patient-physician encounters toward more positive outcomes. Methodological guidelines are suggested that can improve future preference-match studies of the patient-physician interaction. Practitioners need to consider adoption of patient-match assessment and intervention strategies in addition to recent exclusive concentrations on patient-centered and shared decision-making approaches.
OBJECTIVE: A comprehensive review was conducted of the theoretical and empirical work that addresses the preference-match strategy in physician-patient communication. METHODS: Searches were conducted on Medline, PsychINFO, InFoTrac One File Plus, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertation Abstracts through 2004. The following keywords were used: patient preferred and received information; patient preferred and actualized treatment decision-making; patient-physician beliefs in shared decision-making; patient-physician match, fit, or concordance; reciprocal relationship or mutuality; doctor-patient affiliation, control, relationship; match/fit between patient and physician in affiliation, control, or relationship. RESULTS: Findings revealed varying degrees of support for the positive effects of matching patients' preferred levels of information, decisional control, and consultative interpersonal behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Findings justify not only continued but expanded research efforts in this area that would incorporate recommended changes in research design and implementation. PRACTICE AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS: Assessment strategies and match interventions are discussed that, if evidence continues to be supportive, might routinely optimize patient-physician encounters toward more positive outcomes. Methodological guidelines are suggested that can improve future preference-match studies of the patient-physician interaction. Practitioners need to consider adoption of patient-match assessment and intervention strategies in addition to recent exclusive concentrations on patient-centered and shared decision-making approaches.
Authors: Joseph L Riley; Valeria V Gordan; Susan E Hudak-Boss; Jeffery L Fellows; D Brad Rindal; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: France Légaré; Stéphane Turcotte; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Ratté; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham Journal: Patient Date: 2012 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Peter J Kaboli; Austin S Baldwin; Michael S Henderson; Areef Ishani; Jamie A Cvengros; Alan J Christensen Journal: Patient Date: 2009-03-01 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: France Légaré; Dawn Stacey; Nathalie Brière; Sophie Desroches; Serge Dumont; Kimberley Fraser; Mary-Anne Murray; Anne Sales; Denise Aubé Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Johannes Hamann; Bruno Neuner; Jürgen Kasper; Andrea Vodermaier; Andreas Loh; Anja Deinzer; Christoph Heesen; Werner Kissling; Raymonde Busch; Roland Schmieder; Claudia Spies; Cornelia Caspari; Martin Härter Journal: Health Expect Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Carolien Wentink; Marloes J Huijbers; Peter Lbj Lucassen; Annoek van der Gouw; Cornelis Kramers; Jan Spijker; Anne Em Speckens Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 5.386