BACKGROUND: The literature shows that the quality of communication is usually determined from a professional perspective. Patients or lay people are seldom involved in the development of quality indicators or communication. OBJECTIVE: To give voice to the lay people perspective on what constitutes 'good communication' by evoking their reactions to variations in physician communication. DESIGN: Lay people from four different countries watched the same videotaped standardized medical encounters and discussed their preferences in gender-specific focus groups who were balanced in age groups. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and fifty-nine lay people (64 NL, 72 IT, 75 UK and 48 BE) distributed over 35 focus groups of 6-8 persons each. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Comments on doctors' behaviours were classified by the GULiVer framework in terms of contents and preferences. RESULTS: Participants prevalently discussed 'task-oriented expressions' (39%: competency, self-confident, providing solutions), 'affective oriented/emotional expressions' (25%: empathy, listening, reassuring) and 'process-oriented expressions' (23%: flexibility, summarizing, verifying). 'Showing an affective attitude' was most appreciated (positive percentage within category: 93%, particularly facilitations and inviting attitude), followed by 'providing solution' (85%). Among disfavoured behaviour, repetitions (88%), 'writing and reading' (54%) and asking permission (42%) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Although an affective attitude is appreciated by nearly everybody, people may vary widely in their communication needs and preferences: what is 'good communication' for one person may be disliked or even a source of irritation for another. A physician should be flexible and capable of adapting the consultation to the different needs of different patients. This challenges the idea of general communication guidelines.
BACKGROUND: The literature shows that the quality of communication is usually determined from a professional perspective. Patients or lay people are seldom involved in the development of quality indicators or communication. OBJECTIVE: To give voice to the lay people perspective on what constitutes 'good communication' by evoking their reactions to variations in physician communication. DESIGN: Lay people from four different countries watched the same videotaped standardized medical encounters and discussed their preferences in gender-specific focus groups who were balanced in age groups. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and fifty-nine lay people (64 NL, 72 IT, 75 UK and 48 BE) distributed over 35 focus groups of 6-8 persons each. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Comments on doctors' behaviours were classified by the GULiVer framework in terms of contents and preferences. RESULTS:Participants prevalently discussed 'task-oriented expressions' (39%: competency, self-confident, providing solutions), 'affective oriented/emotional expressions' (25%: empathy, listening, reassuring) and 'process-oriented expressions' (23%: flexibility, summarizing, verifying). 'Showing an affective attitude' was most appreciated (positive percentage within category: 93%, particularly facilitations and inviting attitude), followed by 'providing solution' (85%). Among disfavoured behaviour, repetitions (88%), 'writing and reading' (54%) and asking permission (42%) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Although an affective attitude is appreciated by nearly everybody, people may vary widely in their communication needs and preferences: what is 'good communication' for one person may be disliked or even a source of irritation for another. A physician should be flexible and capable of adapting the consultation to the different needs of different patients. This challenges the idea of general communication guidelines.
Authors: R Grol; M Wensing; J Mainz; P Ferreira; H Hearnshaw; P Hjortdahl; F Olesen; M Ribacke; T Spenser; J Szécsényi Journal: Fam Pract Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: C Laine; F Davidoff; C E Lewis; E C Nelson; E Nelson; R C Kessler; T L Delbanco Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1996-10-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Thomas D Sequist; Eric C Schneider; Michael Anastario; Esosa G Odigie; Richard Marshall; William H Rogers; Dana Gelb Safran Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-08-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Frans Awm Derksen; Tim C Olde Hartman; Jozien M Bensing; Antoine Lm Lagro-Janssen Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Steffy E A Stans; Ruth J P Dalemans; Uta R Roentgen; Hester W H Smeets; Anna J H M Beurskens Journal: Health Expect Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Catharina Schoenfeld; Yves Libert; Heribert Sattel; Delphine Canivet; France Delevallez; Andreas Dinkel; Pascal O Berberat; Alexander Wuensch; Darius Razavi Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Olivia Brookes; Celia Brown; Carolyn Tarrant; Julian Archer; Duncan Buckley; Lisa Marie Buckley; Ian Clement; Felicity Evison; Fang Gao Smith; Chris Gibbins; Emma Hayton; Jennifer Jones; Richard Lilford; Randeep Mullhi; Greg Packer; Gavin Perkins; Jonathan Shelton; Catherine Snelson; Paul Sullivan; Ivo Vlaev; Daniel Wolstenholme; Stephen E Wright; Julian Bion Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Victoria Walton; Anne Hogden; Janet C Long; Julie K Johnson; David Greenfield Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Hinke Hoffstädt; Jacqueline Stouthard; Maartje C Meijers; Janine Westendorp; Inge Henselmans; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Paul de Jong; Sandra van Dulmen; Liesbeth M van Vliet Journal: Palliat Med Rep Date: 2020-06-11