Search

Patients' first impressions obtained during early contacts with doctors represent the basis for relationship building processes. Aim of this study was to verify how patients' first impression of doctors' communication approach influences patients' global assessment of doctors' performance. This cross-sectional study was part of a larger, multicenter observational study aiming to assess lay-people's preferences regarding patient–doctor communication. All participants (N = 136) were equally distributed over two selected Italian and Dutch recruitment centers as well as for gender and age. In each center, panels of 6–9 persons each watched the same set of eight videotaped Objective Structured Clinical Examination consultations. Participants performed different tasks as to pick up salient communication elements while watching the videos and to rate doctors' global communicative performances on a 10-point Likert scale. We performed a mediation analysis to assess direct and indirect effects of participants' first impression on participants' global assessment. Among the 439 collected first impressions, 284(65%) were positive. When the first impression was positive, the mean value of the global assessment of doctors' performance was significantly higher (M = 7.4, SD = 1.5) than when the first impression was negative (M = 6.0, SD = 1.6); t(437) = 9.0 p <.001. According to the mediation analysis, this difference was due to a direct (c' = 0.53) and an indirect effect (ab = 0.86) deriving from the total effect of first impressions on the global assessment of doctors' performances (c = 1.39). In conclusion, the first impression has a strong impact on positive and negative judgments on doctors' communication approach and may facilitate or inhibit all further interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess European patients' preferences regarding seven aspects of doctor-patient communication.Methods: 6049 patients from 31 European countries evaluated 21 doctor and 12 patient behaviours, through a patient-generated questionnaire (PCVq). Multilevel models explored the effects of patient characteristics, contextual and cultural dimensions on preferences.Results: Patients attributed more responsibility to doctors, by giving greater importance to doctor than to patient factors, in particular to Treating the patient as a partner and as a person and Continuity of care. Gender, age, education, the presence of chronic illness and two of Hofstede's cultural dimensions, Individualism and Indulgence, showed differential evaluations among patients. Women gave greater importance to all seven communication aspects, older patients to being prepared for the consultation, lower educated patients to Treating patient as a person and Thoughtful planning. Patients from countries with an indulgent background rated all seven communication aspects of greater importance. A more individualistic orientation was related to lower importance regarding the four doctor's factors and the patient factor Open and Honest.Conclusions: Treating the patient as a person and providing continuity of care emerged as universal values.Practice Implications: The findings should represent a landmark for the adaptation of patient-generated communication guidelines and programs in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]