| Literature DB >> 29359146 |
Piercarlo Ballo1, Massimo Milli2, Carly Slater3, Fabrizio Bandini4, Federico Trentanove3, Giulia Comper3, Alfredo Zuppiroli5, Stefania Polvani3.
Abstract
Strategies to improve doctor-patient communication may have a beneficial impact on patient's illness experience and mood, with potential favorable clinical effects. We prospectively tested the psychometric and clinical validity of the Decalogue, a tool utilizing 10 communication recommendations for patients and physicians. The Decalogue was administered to 100 consecutive patients referred for a cardiologic consultation, whereas 49 patients served as controls. The POMS-2 questionnaire was used to measure the total mood disturbance at the end of the consultation. Structural equation modeling showed high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.93), good test-retest reproducibility, and high validity of the psychometric construct (all > 0.80), suggesting a positive effect on patients' illness experience. The total mood disturbance was lower in the patients exposed to the Decalogue as compared to the controls (1.4 ± 12.1 versus 14.8 ± 27.6, p = 0.0010). In an additional questionnaire, patients in the Decalogue group showed a trend towards a better understanding of their state of health (p = 0.07). In a cardiologic ambulatory setting, the Decalogue shows good validity and reliability as a tool to improve patients' illness experience and could have a favorable impact on mood states. These effects might potentially improve patient engagement in care and adherence to therapy, as well as clinical outcome.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29359146 PMCID: PMC5735609 DOI: 10.1155/2017/2792131
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Main structure of the Decalogue. (a) The Decalogue flyer, printed in Italian language, used for this study. (b) English translation of the ten recommendations for the patient and the doctor.
Figure 2Graphical representation of the a priori structural equation model hypothesized to validate the psychometric construct. Latent variables are shown as circular boxes, while observed variables are indicated by rectangles.
Comparison of general characteristics between the two study groups. CAD = coronary artery disease.
| Decalogue group | Control group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 67.5 ± 15.9 | 70.6 ± 13.5 | 0.22 |
| Female gender ( | 46 (46.0%) | 19 (38.8%) | 0.51 |
| Education level ( | 0.74 | ||
| Elementary school | 27 (27.8%) | 15 (31.3%) | |
| Middle school | 30 (30.9%) | 13 (27.1%) | |
| High school | 29 (29.9%) | 12 (25.0%) | |
| Degree | 11 (11.3%) | 8 (16.7%) | |
| Socioeconomic status ( | 0.81 | ||
| Low | 71 (73.2%) | 33 (68.8%) | |
| Intermediate | 16 (16.5%) | 10 (20.8%) | |
| High | 10 (10.3%) | 5 (10.4%) | |
| Main reason for referral ( | 0.88 | ||
| CAD | 37 (38.0%) | 15 (31.3%) | |
| Heart failure | 30 (28.0%) | 17 (35.4%) | |
| Arrhythmias | 17 (18.0%) | 7 (14.6%) | |
| Hypertension | 7 (7.0%) | 5 (10.4%) | |
| Other | 9 (9.0%) | 4 (8.3%) | |
| Number of medications in current therapy ( | 5 [3–7] | 5 [4–7] | 0.56 |
| Number of daily medication assumptions ( | 6 [3–9] | 6 [4–9] | 0.67 |
| Depression ( | 7 (7.0%) | 1 (2.3%) | 0.28 |
Percentages calculated on a total sample of 97 patients in the Decalogue group, due to missing data in 3 subjects.
Figure 3Results of structural equation modeling analysis. Path coefficients for both formative variables included in the a priori model (in yellow) and confounding variables (in grey) are reported. Model fitting indexes, expressed as R2 values, are also shown. Dotted arrows denote nonsignificant associations.
Figure 4Differences in the specific mood disturbance scores for the single classes of the POMS-2 questionnaire between the Decalogue group and the controls.
Figure 5Differences in the specific scores for the single items of the NAME questionnaire between the Decalogue group and the controls.