Marie C Haverfield1,2, Aaron Tierney3, Rachel Schwartz4,5, Michelle B Bass6, Cati Brown-Johnson7, Dani L Zionts7, Nadia Safaeinili7, Meredith Fischer7, Jonathan G Shaw7, Sonoo Thadaney3, Gabriella Piccininni3, Karl A Lorenz4,7, Steven M Asch4,7, Abraham Verghese3, Donna M Zulman4,7. 1. Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (152-MPD), Menlo Park, CA, USA. marie.haverfield@sjsu.edu. 2. Stanford University Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (PCOR) and Center for Health Research and Policy (CHRP), Stanford, CA, USA. marie.haverfield@sjsu.edu. 3. School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 4. Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (152-MPD), Menlo Park, CA, USA. 5. Stanford University Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (PCOR) and Center for Health Research and Policy (CHRP), Stanford, CA, USA. 6. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard, Boston, CA, USA. 7. Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human connection is at the heart of medical care, but questions remain as to the effectiveness of interpersonal interventions. The purpose of this review was to characterize the associations between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and the quadruple aim outcomes (population health, patient experience, cost, and provider experience). METHODS: We sourced data from PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycInfo (January 1997-August 2017). Selected studies included randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies that examined the association between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and at least one outcome measure of the quadruple aim. Two abstractors independently extracted information about study design, methods, and quality. We characterized evidence related to the objective of the intervention, type and duration of intervention training, target recipient (provider-only vs. provider-patient dyad), and quadruple aim outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-three out of 21,835 studies met the design and outcome inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of research was moderate to high for most included studies; 67% of interventions targeted the provider. Most studies measured impact on patient experience; improvements in experience (e.g., satisfaction, patient-centeredness, reduced unmet needs) often corresponded with a positive impact on other patient health outcomes (e.g., quality of life, depression, adherence). Enhanced interpersonal interactions improved provider well-being, burnout, stress, and confidence in communicating with difficult patients. Roughly a quarter of studies evaluated cost, but the majority reported no significant differences between intervention and control groups. Among studies that measured time in the clinical encounter, intervention effects varied. Interventions with lower demands on provider time and effort were often as effective as those with higher demands. DISCUSSION: Simple, low-demand patient-provider interpersonal interventions may have the potential to improve patient health and patient and provider experience, but there is limited evidence that these interventions influence cost-related outcomes.
BACKGROUND:Human connection is at the heart of medical care, but questions remain as to the effectiveness of interpersonal interventions. The purpose of this review was to characterize the associations between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and the quadruple aim outcomes (population health, patient experience, cost, and provider experience). METHODS: We sourced data from PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycInfo (January 1997-August 2017). Selected studies included randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies that examined the association between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and at least one outcome measure of the quadruple aim. Two abstractors independently extracted information about study design, methods, and quality. We characterized evidence related to the objective of the intervention, type and duration of intervention training, target recipient (provider-only vs. provider-patient dyad), and quadruple aim outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-three out of 21,835 studies met the design and outcome inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of research was moderate to high for most included studies; 67% of interventions targeted the provider. Most studies measured impact on patient experience; improvements in experience (e.g., satisfaction, patient-centeredness, reduced unmet needs) often corresponded with a positive impact on other patient health outcomes (e.g., quality of life, depression, adherence). Enhanced interpersonal interactions improved provider well-being, burnout, stress, and confidence in communicating with difficult patients. Roughly a quarter of studies evaluated cost, but the majority reported no significant differences between intervention and control groups. Among studies that measured time in the clinical encounter, intervention effects varied. Interventions with lower demands on provider time and effort were often as effective as those with higher demands. DISCUSSION: Simple, low-demand patient-provider interpersonal interventions may have the potential to improve patient health and patient and provider experience, but there is limited evidence that these interventions influence cost-related outcomes.
Authors: Roger Ruiz Moral; Luis Angel Pérula de Torres; Laura Pulido Ortega; Margarita Criado Larumbe; Ana Roldán Villalobos; Jose Angel Fernández García; Juan Manuel Parras Rejano Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2015-03-18
Authors: R C Smith; J S Lyles; J Mettler; B E Stoffelmayr; L F Van Egeren; A A Marshall; J C Gardiner; K M Maduschke; J M Stanley; G G Osborn; V Shebroe; R B Greenbaum Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1998-01-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Matthias Briel; Wolf Langewitz; Peter Tschudi; Jim Young; Christa Hugenschmidt; Heiner C Bucher Journal: Swiss Med Wkly Date: 2006-04-15 Impact factor: 2.193
Authors: Juan Angel Bellón; Antonina Rodríguez-Bayón; Juan de Dios Luna; Francisco Torres-González Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Ingrid M Bakker; Berend Terluin; Harm W J van Marwijk; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Frank Rijmen; Willem van Mechelen; Wim A B Stalman Journal: PLoS Clin Trials Date: 2007-06-01
Authors: Audrey L Jones; Stefan G Kertesz; Leslie R M Hausmann; Maria K Mor; Ying Suo; Warren B P Pettey; James H Schaefer; Adi V Gundlapalli; Adam J Gordon Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-02-29
Authors: Meredith Fischer; Nadia Safaeinili; Marie C Haverfield; Cati G Brown-Johnson; Dani Zionts; Donna M Zulman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Joel Bradley; David Styren; Abigail LaPlante; John Howe; Sienna R Craig; Emily Cohen Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Krista R Schaefer; Michael R Todd; Susan Brown Trinidad; Renee F Robinson; Denise A Dillard Journal: Int J Circumpolar Health Date: 2022-12 Impact factor: 1.228
Authors: Paula D Koppel; Jennie C De Gagne; Sharron Docherty; Sophia Smith; Neil S Prose; Terri Jabaley Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Helen Zhang; Elaine E Cha; Kathleen Lynch; Oren Cahlon; Daniel R Gomez; Narek Shaverdian; Erin F Gillespie Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038