Search

Patient satisfaction is important to patient outcomes. Previous attempts to conceptualize satisfaction have often taken an atheoretical approach and focused on doctors' communication skills. Patients are becoming more active health consumers involved in their health care and current definitions of patient satisfaction may not accurately reflect patient expectations about their health consultations. Earlier research found that meeting patients' emotional needs - through empathy and patient-centered communication - is important to patient satisfaction. New research is needed to explore how those needs can be met given the changing trend in patient behaviors and the focus on patient-centredness. This study employed two communication theories - the Willingness to Communicate Model and Communication Accommodation Theory - to consider both patients' communicative decisions, and the intergroup features of the health context that can influence communicative behaviors. Two hundred and fiftythree patients from health clinics in Canada and Australia described what satisfaction meant to them, and identified what aspects of their health consultation were satisfying (or not), and we investigated their perceptions of doctor's emotional expression. Results suggest that patient perceptions of their participation in the consultation predicts their perceptions of doctor emotional expression, and their satisfaction with the consultation. Patients want both emotional and medical needs met in an environment that balances interpersonal and intergroup communication. Our findings suggest the need to expand current definitions of patient satisfaction, patient-centredness and emotional expression. We discuss the implications of these findings for health practitioners and consider future research that addresses the need for more individualized health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly changed the lives of a majority of the world's population. People have been encouraged to implement social distancing behaviors enforced by governments, and have experienced loss of employment or changes to their usual working environment. In the mental health sector, psychologists and psychiatrists have been forced to alter the standard care of patients without compromising safety. This article documents the experiences of the authors – mental health professionals in four countries, Canada, Russia, Australia and Japan – at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, and offers recommendations on how clinical, training, and research practices may need to be adjusted to deal with lockdown situations. Clinicians adapted their usual best practices by learning new skills and updating their knowledge base. Mental health clinicians noticed that the pandemic led to symptomatic changes in some of their patients. Most clinicians moved towards providing telemental health services, such as conducting assessments and treatments remotely. Those who continued seeing patients in person employed personal protective equipment with various impacts on the clinician–patient relationship. The dilemmas of mass quarantines need to be carefully examined, as their effects on numerous health and psychosocial variables appear to be far-reaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient adherence to maintenance medication is critical for improving clinical outcomes in asthma and is a recommended guiding factor for treatment strategy. Previously, the APPaRENT studies assessed patient and physician perspectives on asthma care; here, a post-hoc analysis aimed to identify patient factors associated with good adherence and treatment prescription patterns., Methods: APPaRENT 1 and 2 were cross-sectional online surveys of 2866 adults with asthma and 1883 physicians across Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Italy, Mexico, and the Philippines in 2020-2021. Combined data assessed adherence to maintenance medication, treatment goals, use of asthma action plans, and physician treatment patterns and preferences. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations between patient characteristics and both treatment prescription (by physicians) and patient treatment adherence., Results: Patient and physician assessments of treatment goals and adherence differed, as did reporting of short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) prescriptions alongside maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Older age and greater patient-reported severity and reliever use were associated with better adherence. Patient-reported prescription of SABA with MART was associated with household smoking, severe or poorly controlled asthma, and living in China or the Philippines., Conclusions: Results revealed an important disconnect between patient and physician treatment goals and treatment adherence, suggesting that strategies for improving patient adherence to maintenance medication are needed, focusing on younger patients with milder disease. High reliever use despite good adherence may indicate poor disease control. Personalised care considering patient characteristics alongside physician training in motivational communication and shared decision-making could improve patient management and outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Giorgio Walter Canonica reports having received research grants as well as being a lecturer or having received advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Abello, Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Firma, Genentech, Guidotti-Malesci, GSK, Hal Allergy, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stallergenes Greer, Valeas, and OM Pharma, outside the submitted work. Christian Domingo has received funding for travel or speaker fees from ALK, Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Menarini, Novartis, Stallergenes, Takeda, and Pfizer, and declares no specific conflicts of interest to report regarding this paper. Kim L. Lavoie reports investigator-initiated research support and speaking fees from AbbVie, consulting fees and speaking fees from Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, X-Factor, Respiplus, and Novartis, consulting fees from Janssen, Sojecci Inc., and AstraZeneca, and speaking fees from Bayer and Mundipharma, outside the submitted work. Amrit Kaliasethi is an employee of Fishawack Communications Ltd, part of Avalere Health. Shireen Quli Khan, Anurita Majumdar, and Sourabh Fulmali are full-time employees of GSK and hold shares in GSK., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Since 2002, paramedics have been working in primary care within the United Kingdom (UK), a transition also mirrored within Australia, Canada and the USA. Recent recommendations to improve UK NHS workforce capacities have led to a major push to increase the numbers of paramedics recruited into primary care. However, gaps exist in the evidence base regarding how and why these changes would work, for whom, in what context and to what extent. To understand the ways in which paramedics impact (or not) the primary care workforce, we conducted a realist review.Methods: A realist approach aims to provide causal explanations through the generation and articulation of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Our search of electronic databases was supplemented with Google and citation checking to locate grey literature including news items and workforce reports. Included documents were from the UK, Australia, Canada and the Americas-countries within which the paramedic role within primary care is well established.Results: Our searches resulted in 205 included documents, from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) within a final programme theory. Our results outline that paramedics are more likely to be effective in contributing to primary care workforces when they are supported to expand their existing role through formal education and clinical supervision. We also found that unless paramedics were fully integrated into primary care services, they did not experience the socialisation needed to build trusting relationships with patients or physicians. Indeed, for patients to accept paramedics in primary care, their role and its implications for their care should be outlined by a trusted source.Conclusions: Our realist review highlights the complexity surrounding the introduction of paramedics into primary care roles. As well as offering an insight into understanding the paramedic professional identity, we also discuss the range of expectations this professional group will face in the transition to primary care. These expectations come from patients, general practitioners (family physicians) and paramedics themselves. This review is the first to offer insight into understanding the impact paramedics may have on the international primary care workforce and shaping how they might be optimally deployed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study is to analyze guidance about medical decision making contained in ethics codes. The primary question we address is which of the main decision-making models - informed decision making (IDM), shared decision making (SDM), or paternalism - is promoted by these codes.Methods: We manually searched codes of medical ethics for guidance on medical decision making. Our analysis focused on the major international code, the World Medical Association International Code of Medical Ethics (ICME), and national codes of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, Germany, France and Norway.Results: The ICME does not promote any specific model of medical decision making. 10 of the 11 analyzed national codes contain guidance about IDM, while only four refer to SDM. Some codes contain articles which are imprecise with regard to the question of medical decision making.Conclusions: All of the analyzed national codes should be updated or amended. In particular, given the great importance of SDM in medicine, codes which do not contain relevant guidance should be updated.Practice Implications: Relevant amendments introduced to ethics codes could contribute to promoting of adequate standards of medical decision making (especially those regarding SDM) among doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite the promises of universal health care in most developed countries, health inequities remain prevalent within and between rural and remote communities. Remote health technologies are often promoted as solutions to increase health system efficiency, to enhance quality of care, and to decrease gaps in access to care for rural and remote communities. However, there is mixed evidence for these interventions, particularly related to how they are received and perceived by health providers and by patients. Health technologies do not always adequately meet the needs of patients or providers. To examine this, a broad-based scoping review was conducted to provide an overview of patient and provider perspectives of eHealth initiatives in rural communities. The unique objective of this review was to prioritize the voices of patients and providers in discussing the disparities between health interventions and needs of people in rural communities. eHealth initiatives were reviewed for rural communities of Australia and Canada, two countries that have similar geographies and comparable health systems at the local level., Methods: Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science with results limited from 2000 to 2018. Keywords included combinations of 'eHealth', 'telehealth', 'telemedicine', 'electronic health', and 'rural/remote'. Individual patient and provider perspectives on health care were identified, followed by qualitative thematic coding based on the type of intervention, the feedback provided, the affected population, geographic location, and category of individual providing their perspective. Quotes from patients and providers are used to illustrate the identified benefits and disadvantages of eHealth technologies., Results: Based on reviewed literature, 90.1% of articles reported that eHealth interventions were largely positive. Articles noted decreased travel time (18%), time/cost saving (15.1%), and increased access to services (13.9%) as primary benefits to eHealth. The most prevalent disadvantages of eHealth were technological issues (24.5%), lack of face-to-face contact (18.6%), limited training (10.8%), and resource disparities (10.8%). These results show where existing eHealth interventions could improve and can inform policymakers and providers in designing new interventions. Importantly, benefits to eHealth extend beyond geographic access. Patients reported ancillary benefits to eHealth that include reduced anxiety, disruption on family life, and improved recovery time. Providers reported closer connections to colleagues, improved support for complex care, and greater eLearning opportunity. Barriers to eHealth are recognized by patient and providers alike to be largely systemic, where lack of rural high-speed internet and unreliability of installed technologies were significant., Conclusion: Regional and national governments are seen as the key players in addressing these technical barriers. This scoping review diverges from many reviews of eHealth with the use of first-person perspectives. It is hoped that this focus will highlight the importance of patient voices in evaluating important healthcare interventions such as eHealth and associated technologies.

Aim: This article synthesises the results of a large international study on primary care (PC), the QUALICOPC study., Background: Since the Alma Ata Declaration, strengthening PC has been high on the policy agenda. PC is associated with positive health outcomes, but it is unclear how care processes and structures relate to patient experiences., Methods: Survey data were collected during 2011-2013 from approximately 7000 PC physicians and 70 000 patients in 34, mainly European, countries. The data on the patients are linked to data on the PC physicians within each country and analysed using multilevel modelling., Findings: Patients had more positive experiences when their PC physician provided a broader range of services. However, a broader range of services is also associated with higher rates of hospitalisations for uncontrolled diabetes, but rates of avoidable diabetes-related hospitalisations were lower in countries where patients had a continuous relationship with PC physicians. Additionally, patients with a long-term relationship with their PC physician were less likely to attend the emergency department. Capitation payment was associated with more positive patient experiences. Mono- and multidisciplinary co-location was related to improved processes in PC, but the experiences of patients visiting multidisciplinary practices were less positive. A stronger national PC structure and higher overall health care expenditures are related to more favourable patient experiences for continuity and comprehensiveness. The study also revealed inequities: patients with a migration background reported less positive experiences. People with lower incomes more often postponed PC visits for financial reasons. Comprehensive and accessible care processes are related to less postponement of care., Conclusions: The study revealed room for improvement related to patient-reported experiences and highlighted the importance of core PC characteristics including a continuous doctor-patient relationship as well as a broad range of services offered by PC physicians.