Inge Henselmans1, Monique Heijmans2, Jany Rademakers2, Sandra van Dulmen2,3,4. 1. Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Health Sciences, Buskerud University College, Drammen, Norway.
Abstract
AIMS: Chronic patients are increasingly expected to participate actively in medical consultations. This study examined (i) patients' perceived efficacy and barriers to participation in consultations, (ii) patients' interest in communication support and (iii) correlates of perceived efficacy and barriers, with an emphasis on differences across providers' disciplines. METHODS: A representative panel of chronic patients (n = 1314) filled out the short Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Provider Interaction scale and were questioned about barriers to participation and interest in communication support. Potential correlates included socio-demographic (age, sex, education, living situation), clinical (discipline care provider, type of illness, comorbidity, illness duration, functional disabilities, health consultations in last year) and personal characteristics (information preference, health literacy, level of general patient activation). RESULTS: Most patients felt efficacious in consultations, although 46% reported barriers to participation and 39% had an interest in support. Barriers most frequently recognized were 'not wanting to be bothersome', 'perception there is too little time' and 'remembering subjects only afterwards'. Patients most frequently endorsed relatively simple support. Patients perceived the least barriers and were least likely to endorse support when seeing a nurse. In multivariate models, consistent risk factors for low efficacy and perceived barriers were low health literacy and a low general patient activation. CONCLUSIONS: Many chronically ill patients feel confident in medical interactions. Still, a significant number might benefit from support. Often this concerned more generally vulnerable patients, that is, the low literate and generally less activated. Relatively simple supportive interventions are likely to be endorsed and might overcome frequent barriers.
AIMS: Chronic patients are increasingly expected to participate actively in medical consultations. This study examined (i) patients' perceived efficacy and barriers to participation in consultations, (ii) patients' interest in communication support and (iii) correlates of perceived efficacy and barriers, with an emphasis on differences across providers' disciplines. METHODS: A representative panel of chronic patients (n = 1314) filled out the short Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Provider Interaction scale and were questioned about barriers to participation and interest in communication support. Potential correlates included socio-demographic (age, sex, education, living situation), clinical (discipline care provider, type of illness, comorbidity, illness duration, functional disabilities, health consultations in last year) and personal characteristics (information preference, health literacy, level of general patient activation). RESULTS: Most patients felt efficacious in consultations, although 46% reported barriers to participation and 39% had an interest in support. Barriers most frequently recognized were 'not wanting to be bothersome', 'perception there is too little time' and 'remembering subjects only afterwards'. Patients most frequently endorsed relatively simple support. Patients perceived the least barriers and were least likely to endorse support when seeing a nurse. In multivariate models, consistent risk factors for low efficacy and perceived barriers were low health literacy and a low general patient activation. CONCLUSIONS: Many chronically ill patients feel confident in medical interactions. Still, a significant number might benefit from support. Often this concerned more generally vulnerable patients, that is, the low literate and generally less activated. Relatively simple supportive interventions are likely to be endorsed and might overcome frequent barriers.
Authors: Aneta Dimoska; Martin H N Tattersall; Phyllis N Butow; Heather Shepherd; Paul Kinnersley Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Donna Kalauokalani; Peter Franks; Jennifer Wright Oliver; Frederick J Meyers; Richard L Kravitz Journal: Pain Med Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Jesse Jansen; Julia C M van Weert; Judith de Groot; Sandra van Dulmen; Thea J Heeren; Jozien M Bensing Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-12-11
Authors: Rose C Maly; Yihang Liu; Barbara Leake; Amardeep Thind; Allison L Diamant Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2009-05-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Merle H Mishel; Barbara B Germino; Michael Belyea; Janet L Stewart; Donald E Bailey; James Mohler; Cary Robertson Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Susan Eggly; Lauren M Hamel; Tanina S Foster; Terrance L Albrecht; Robert Chapman; Felicity W K Harper; Hayley Thompson; Jennifer J Griggs; Richard Gonzalez; Lisa Berry-Bobovski; Rifky Tkatch; Michael Simon; Anthony Shields; Shirish Gadgeel; Randa Loutfi; Haythem Ali; Ira Wollner; Louis A Penner Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-12-27
Authors: Jeanine A Driesenaar; Peter Agm De Smet; Rolf van Hulten; Litje Hu; Sandra van Dulmen Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Inge Renske van Bruinessen; Evelyn M van Weel-Baumgarten; Hans Gouw; Josée M Zijlstra; Sandra van Dulmen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 5.428