Literature DB >> 6474233

What is a successful doctor-patient interview? A study of interactions and outcomes.

M A Stewart.   

Abstract

The discipline of family medicine has espoused a patient-centred model of the doctor-patient interaction. Patient-centred interactions are those in which the patient's point of view is actively sought by the physician. This implies that the physician behaves in a manner that facilitates the patient's expressing himself and that, for his part, the patient speaks openly and asks questions. The present exploratory study was undertaken to assess whether patient-centred interviews are related to positive outcomes. The study was conducted in 24 family physicians' offices where 140 doctor-patient interactions were audiotaped. Patients with both acute and chronic illnesses were included. The taped interactions were analysed using Bales Interaction Process Analysis. Ten days after the audiotaped visit the patients were interviewed in their home in order to assess their satisfaction with care, their reported compliance and to conduct a pill count. Bivariate analysis indicated that interviews in which physicians demonstrated a high frequency of patient-centred behaviour were related to significantly higher reported compliance and close to significantly better pill counts and satisfaction. Furthermore, in most instances, when the patient and physician scores were considered in combination, there was evidence that the physician's behaviour, particularly that sort of behaviour which initiated a discussion such as an explicit request for the patient's opinion, had more impact upon outcome than did the patient behaviour. The study suggests the importance in the setting of family practice of a patient-centred approach, one which is similar to models such as the negotiated approach to patienthood, described by psychiatrists.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6474233     DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(84)90284-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  62 in total

1.  Certification examination of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Part 4: Simulated office orals.

Authors:  J B Brown; R Handfield-Jones; P Rainsberry; C A Brailovsky
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  Model for assessing psychosocial problems.

Authors:  D Tannenbaum; M McGillivray
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  The consultation and health outcomes.

Authors:  J Horder; G T Moore
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 4.  Differences in clinical communication by gender.

Authors:  V Elderkin-Thompson; H Waitzkin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Reflections on the doctor-patient relationship: from evidence and experience.

Authors:  Moira Stewart
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Factors associated with adherence to drug therapy: a population-based study.

Authors:  Annika Bardel; Mari-Ann Wallander; Kurt Svärdsudd
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 2.953

7.  Effect and Durability of an In-depth Training Course on Physician Communication Skills.

Authors:  James T Hardee; Thomas F Rehring; Joseph E Cassara; Karl Weiss; Nicholas Perrine
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2019

8.  Comparing GP and nurse practitioner consultations.

Authors:  Julian Barratt
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Missed opportunities for interval empathy in lung cancer communication.

Authors:  Diane S Morse; Elizabeth A Edwardsen; Howard S Gordon
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2008-09-22

10.  Roles and influence of people who accompany patients on visits to the doctor.

Authors:  J B Brown; P Brett; M Stewart; J N Marshall
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 3.275

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.