Meredith A Goodwin1, Kurt C Stange2, Stephen J Zyzanski3, Benjamin F Crabtree4, Elaine A Borawski5, Susan A Flocke6. 1. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Sociology, and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 3. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 4. Department of Family Medicine, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. 5. Prevention Research Center for Healthy Neighborhoods and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 6. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Prevention Research Center for Healthy Neighborhoods and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: This study examines the degree to which a "Hawthorne effect" alters outpatient-visit content. METHODS: Trained research nurses directly observed 4454 visits to 138 family physicians. Multiple data sources were used to examine the Hawthorne effect including differences in medical record documentation for observed visits and the prior visit by the same patient, time use during visits on the first versus the second observation day of each physician, and report by the patient, physician, and observer of the effect of observation. RESULTS: Visits on the first versus the second observation day were longer by an average of 1 minute (P < .001); there were time-use differences for 4 of 20 behaviour categories evaluated. No effect of the observer on the interaction was reported by 74% of patients and 55% of physicians. Most of those that reported an affect indicated it was slight. Patients with non-White race, lower-educational level, and poorer health were more likely to report being affected by the observer. CONCLUSIONS: In a study that was designed to minimize the Hawthorne effect, the presence of an observer had little effect on most patient-physician visits but appeared to at least slightly effect a subgroup of vulnerable patients.
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: This study examines the degree to which a "Hawthorne effect" alters outpatient-visit content. METHODS: Trained research nurses directly observed 4454 visits to 138 family physicians. Multiple data sources were used to examine the Hawthorne effect including differences in medical record documentation for observed visits and the prior visit by the same patient, time use during visits on the first versus the second observation day of each physician, and report by the patient, physician, and observer of the effect of observation. RESULTS: Visits on the first versus the second observation day were longer by an average of 1 minute (P < .001); there were time-use differences for 4 of 20 behaviour categories evaluated. No effect of the observer on the interaction was reported by 74% of patients and 55% of physicians. Most of those that reported an affect indicated it was slight. Patients with non-White race, lower-educational level, and poorer health were more likely to report being affected by the observer. CONCLUSIONS: In a study that was designed to minimize the Hawthorne effect, the presence of an observer had little effect on most patient-physician visits but appeared to at least slightly effect a subgroup of vulnerable patients.
Authors: Wim H J M Verstappen; Trudy van der Weijden; Gerben ter Riet; Jeremy Grimshaw; Ron Winkens; Richard P T M Grol Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Richard K Mugambe; Jane Sembuche Mselle; Tonny Ssekamatte; Moses Ntanda; John Bosco Isunju; Solomon T Wafula; Winnifred K Kansiime; Prossy Isubikalu; David Ssemwanga; Habib Yakubu; Christine L Moe Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Anders Schram; Charlotte Paltved; Karl Bang Christensen; Gunhild Kjaergaard-Andersen; Hanne Irene Jensen; Solvejg Kristensen Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2021-03
Authors: Nynikka R Palmer; Janet K Shim; Celia P Kaplan; Dean Schillinger; Sarah D Blaschko; Benjamin N Breyer; Rena J Pasick Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Nina Granel-Giménez; Patrick Albert Palmieri; Carolina E Watson-Badia; Rebeca Gómez-Ibáñez; Juan Manuel Leyva-Moral; María Dolors Bernabeu-Tamayo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 4.614