| Literature DB >> 29253891 |
Taufique Joarder1,2, Asha George3, Syed Masud Ahmed1, Sabina Faiz Rashid1, Malabika Sarker1.
Abstract
Responsiveness entails the social actions by health providers to meet the legitimate expectations of patients. It plays a critical role in ensuring continuity and effectiveness of care within people centered health systems. Given the lack of contextualized research on responsiveness, we qualitatively explored the perceptions of outpatient users and providers regarding what constitute responsiveness in rural Bangladesh. An exploratory study was undertaken in Chuadanga, a southwestern Bangladeshi District, involving in-depth interviews of physicians (n = 17) and users (n = 7), focus group discussions with users (n = 4), and observations of patient provider interactions (three weeks). Analysis was guided by a conceptual framework of responsiveness, which includes friendliness, respecting, informing and guiding, gaining trust and optimizing benefits. In terms of friendliness, patients expected physicians to greet them before starting consultations; even though physicians considered this unusual. Patients also expected physicians to hold social talks during consultations, which was uncommon. With regards to respect patients expected physicians to refrain from disrespecting them in various ways; but also by showing respect explicitly. Patients also had expectations related to informing and guiding: they desired explanation on at least the diagnosis, seriousness of illness, treatment and preventive steps. In gaining trust, patients expected that physicians would refrain from illegal or unethical activities related to patients, e.g., demanding money against free services, bringing patients in own private clinics by brokers (dalals), colluding with diagnostic centers, accepting gifts from pharmaceutical representatives. In terms of optimizing benefits: patients expected that physicians should be financially sensitive and consider individual need of patients. There were multiple dimensions of responsiveness- for some, stakeholders had a consensus; context was an important factor to understand them. This being an exploratory study, further research is recommended to validate the nuances of the findings. It can be a guideline for responsiveness practices, and a tipping point for future research.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29253891 PMCID: PMC5734771 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189962
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Domains of responsiveness of physicians.
List of reviewed literature and the detailed process of deriving these domains are described elsewhere [38]. These domains are interlinked, and the components may often overlap.
Characteristics of respondents and observation settings.
| Number | 7 | |
| Gender | 2 females and 5 males | |
| Range of graduation year | 1982–2009 | |
| Number | 5 (2 of them retired from public sector, 1 was accepted in public sector and waiting to join, and only 2 had no linkage with public sector) | |
| Gender | 1 female and 4 males | |
| Range of graduation year | 1973–2013 | |
| Number | 5 | |
| Gender | 5 males | |
| Range of number of years in practice | 2–32 | |
| Range of level of formal education (excluding training in medicine) | secondary–bachelor | |
| Number | 7 | |
| Gender | 4 females and 3 males | |
| Range of age in years | 25–48 (females: 25–45; males: 45–48) | |
| Range of level of education | primary–masters (females: primary-honors; males: honors-masters) | |
| Types of occupation | females: homemaker, kindergarten teacher and high school teachers; males: high school teachers, businessmen | |
| Number of sessions | 4 (2 with females, 2 with males) | |
| Number of participants | 7–8 in each session | |
| Range of age in years | 19–72 (females: 19–59; males: 31–72) | |
| Range of level of education | primary–masters (females: primary-masters; males: primary-honors) | |
| Type of occupation | females: college and high school teachers and custodial staff; males: college and school teacher, retired government official, businessman, farmer | |
| Setting | 3 settings: public sector (consultation rooms in an UpHC), private sector (consultation rooms in a for-profit private clinic and an NGO-clinic), and informal sector (consultation rooms of 3 village doctors in a village bazaar) | |
| Duration | 1 week in each setting | |
Elements of responsiveness of physicians in each domain.
| Name of Domain | Components of Domain |
|---|---|
| Greeting, identifying self by the physician, engaging in social talk, showing friendliness, giving reassurance, not using jargon or professional language, not showing hierarchical difference, positive non-verbal communications, being humorous, holding closing conversation. | |
| Expressing respect, listening to complaints completely and attentively, taking consent, allowing patients to ask questions, being culturally sensitive, refraining from discriminations (based on socio economic status, gender, religion, type of disease, or any other consideration), avoiding interruptions during consultation, having an acceptable appearance, and establishing or maintaining discipline inside consultation room. | |
| Communicating limitations, helping patients to find the right physician, explaining to patients different aspects of their disease or condition (cause, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, preventive aspects, side effects of drugs, and result of tests), involving patients in decision making and care, providing patients with information on health promotion and disease prevention, writing prescription legibly, and facilitating follow up. | |
| Maintaining confidentiality of information, referring immediately if necessary, taking help from colleagues in confusion, gaining trust, being service-oriented not businesslike, and refraining from illegal or unethical activities. | |
| Counseling on social or family issues if related to the disease, going for a home visitation if demanded, considering individual need of the patient while prescribing, facilitating utilization of local resources, and showing financial sensitivity. |
Crosscutting themes across five domains of responsiveness of physicians.
| Common themes | Friendliness | Respecting | Informing and guiding | Gaining trust | Optimizing benefits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| • Patients expected greeting words, social talks, and non-hierarchical arrangements during consultations | • Patients expressed expectation of not being discriminated, and uninterrupted consultations. | • Patients expected physicians to explain different aspects of the disease, and write prescription clearly and legibly. | • Patients expected physicians would consult with others in confusion, be care-oriented and not businesslike, and refrain from illegal or questionable activities. | • Patients expected home-visitation by physicians, and financial sensitivity and information regarding treatment costs. | |
| Exchange of closing conversations was more common than introductory greetings. | Seeking consent was considered redundant by both physicians and patients, except in some specific circumstances. | Allowing autonomy may be harmful if ‘ignorant and superstitious’ patients want to consult a ‘quack’. Patients felt more comfortable relying on expert decisions by physicians, rather than shared decisions. Some physicians felt providing explanation was useless for patients, who lacked knowledge. | Patients were reportedly more satisfied with their information shared with different agencies. | Patients expected from physicians to consider their financial status before prescribing. | |
| Most physicians provided some degree of reassurance, and demonstrated sense of humor (mainly in private sector). | Physicians were respectful in general; listened to patients attentively; and did not discriminate on gender, religion, disease condition, and age. | Physicians usually told patients about disease prevention and health promotion aspects related to the particular disease. | Physicians in the private sector referred patients readily if found to be non-treatable in the existing setup. Public-sector physicians did the opposite, considering the cost of referral and fearing this to be a burden for the predominantly poor patients visiting them. | A physician showed his sensitivity about cases of violence against women, and expressed his readiness to comply with the legal prerogatives of such cases. Physicians demonstrated financial sensitivity by explicitly trying to understand patients’ financial ability to undergo treatment, and even helped within their limited means. |