Search

Objective: To describe the methodological procedures of a multi-centre focus group research for obtaining content categories also suitable for categorical statistical analyses., Methods: Inductive content analyses were performed on a subsample of 27 focus groups conducted in three different countries, the Netherlands (Utrecht), the UK (Liverpool) and Italy (Verona). The analyses of the subsample of focus group discussions were performed in five steps: (1) independent development of content categories in each of the participating centres, (2) obtaining consensus categories, (3) creation of a manual with coding rules and defining criteria for categories and subcategories, (4) assessment of inter-rater reliability to identify unreliable categories to be revised, and (5) repetition of inter-rater reliability assessment., Results: The resulting coding system considers five areas: non verbal communication, process oriented expression, task oriented or problem focused expressions, affective or emotional expressions, and physician's personal characteristics. It contains 12 categories of acceptable inter-rater reliability and 41 subcategories., Conclusion: The coding procedures show how focus group data, obtained in an international multi-centre study can be analysed in a systematic way combining scientific rigour with the richness of data obtainable from qualitative methodologies., Practice Implication: The applied procedures may be helpful for multi-centre focus group research on other topics., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Good doctor-patient communication may lead to better compliance, higher patient satisfaction, and finally, better health. Although the social variance in how physicians and patients communicate is clearly demonstrated, little is known about what patients with different educational attainments actually prefer in doctor-patient communication. In this study we describe patients' perspective in doctor-patient communication according to their educational level, and to what extent these perspectives lean towards the expert opinion on doctor-patient communication. In a multi-center study (Belgium, The Netherlands, UK and Italy), focus group discussions were organised using videotaped medical consultations. A mixed methods approach was used to analyse the data. Firstly, a difference in perspective in communication style was found between the lower educated participants versus the middle and higher educated participants. Secondly, lower educated participants referred positively most to aspects related to the affective/emotional area of the medical consultation, followed by the task-oriented/problem-focused area. Middle and higher educated participants positively referred most to the task-oriented/problem-focused area. The competency of the physician was an important category of communication for all participants, independent of social background. The results indicate that the preferences of lower educated participants lean more towards the expert opinion in doctor-patient communication than the middle and higher educated participants. Patients' educational level seems to influence their perspective on communication style and should be taken into account by physicians. Further quantitative research is needed to confirm these results.

Background: The evidence that inspires and fosters communication skills, teaching programmes and clinical recommendations are often based on national studies which assume, implicitly, that patients' preferences towards doctors' communication style are not significantly affected by their cultural background. The cross-cultural validity of national results has been recognized as a potential limitation on how generally applicable they are in a wider context. Using 35 country-specific focus group discussions from four European countries, the aim of the present study is to test whether or not national cultures influence lay people's preferences towards doctors' style of communication.Methods: Lay people preferences on doctor's communication style have been collected in Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Italy. Each centre organized between eight and nine focus groups, where participants (n = 259) were asked to comment on a video of a simulated medical interview. The discussions were audiotaped, transcribed and coded using a common framework (Guliver Coding System) that allowed for the identification of different themes.Results: The frequency distribution of the topics discussed highlights lay people's generally positive views towards most part of doctors interventions. The regression model applied to the Guliver categories highlighted slight national differences and the existence of a cross-cultural appreciation, in particular, of five types of intervention: Doctors attitudes (both Task-Oriented and Affective/Emotional), Summarizing, Structuring and Providing solution.Conclusion: Lay panels valued doctors' communication style in a similar manner in the countries selected. This highlights the existence of a common background, which in the process of internationalization of heath care, might foster the implementation of cross-national teaching programmes and clinical guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which aims to listen to peoples' perspectives on what constitutes a good physician communication. The researchers detail the study design using videotaped standardized medical encounters to discuss their preferences in gender-specific focus groups. It implies that the physicians' affective attitude is most desired and appreciated by patients.

This paper assesses whether gender plays a role when male and female participants discuss the quality of doctor-patient communication in gynaecological consultations. A European multi-centre study was conducted comprising 259 participants in 35 genderand country-specific focus groups. In all focus groups, a set of four videotaped Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) consultations was used as a prompt for discussion. The doctors' ability in communication was assessed by participants' ratings and by a quantified content analysis of their comments, using a mixed-method approach. Gender analysis was performed applying a set of generalized linear regression models. The findings indicated that gender differences were smaller than expected. The individual ratings of the overall quality of communication were similar for male and female participants, and there were hardly any differences in the content of the discussions. The only two exceptions were that female doctors were criticized more than male doctors when they made impersonal comments and that female participants were more outspoken than men, positively and negatively. The prevalence of gender similarities suggests that doctors' empathy, support, understanding and pleasantness are highly appreciated by both male and female participants and appear to transcend gender differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The project GULiVer explores how lay people in Belgium (Gent), the Netherlands (Utrecht), the UK (Liverpool) and Italy (Verona) evaluate physicians’ communicative skills. The aims are to present the study design and to assess the quality of collected data. Methods: In each centre one out of two sets of four videotaped consultations involving medical students with varying communication skills were shown to eight lay panels of six to nine participants each (n = 259). The selection of lay participants was stratified by gender and age in order to obtain a heterogeneous sample. Background characteristics included socio-demographics, participants’ general physical (COOP-WONCA) and mental health (GHQ), communication preferences (QUOTE-com) and trust in doctors (TMP). Participants were asked to give quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the student doctors’ performance in a mixed-methods design. Quality assessment of the collected data and protocol adherence of the four centres was carried out by Generalized Linear Model (GLM). Results: The overall sample comprised 259 participants. Participants were equally distributed among the centres and balanced in terms of age, gender and OSCE scenario, confirming the quality of collected data. Conclusion: The study design and the applied procedures will ensure a great richness of data allowing a wider European perspective on lay persons’ views, assessed both individually and through focus group discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: The aim of this study is to generate empirically based ‘tips’ from lay people on how medical consultations could become more successful from a patient perspective. Methods: 258 Lay people in the United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, distributed over 32 focus groups, were invited to formulate ‘tips’ for doctors as well as patients after rating the quality of communication from videotaped consultations and discussing their arguments in focus groups. Results: Tips were remarkably similar across the four countries. Most tips reflect the professional literature, such as the importance of nonverbal communication, personal attention and empathy, but also addressed issues as how to deal with new technologies and new accessibility arrangements (triage). The tips were targeted to the consultation itself, its preparation and the aftercare. Tips for doctors were mirrored in tips for patients. Conclusion: Lay people seem to be competent in participating in quality-of-care debates. They are well aware of patients’ own responsibilities. Besides, they have clear opinions about novel technology and healthcare arrangements (triage). Practice implications: Listening to patients, showing empathy and personal attention seem to have a universal value. Doctors should be trained to practice these behaviors, healthcare managers in involving patients in practice reorganisations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]