We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Improving patient-doctor concordance: an intervention study in general practice.
Family Practice 1996 October
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine if providing feedback to the doctor can improve patient-doctor concordance (PDC) on health problems and treatments.
METHODS: The study was carried out in a hospital-based primary care service in a lower socioeconomic status (SES) region of metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. A summary of the existing patient-doctor concordance on health problems and treatments was presented to doctors along with a questionnaire seeking their perceptions of and suggestions on how to act on the findings. In a pre- and post-intervention study, data were collected from consecutive new patients who completed a pre- and post-consultation questionnaire seeking information on the presenting complaint, patient-reported health problem, doctor-recorded health problem, treatments received, and patient expectations of and satisfaction with care. Diagnostic data were classified into body systems. Descriptive statistics were obtained and PDC measured. Following the intervention, data collection was repeated to detect any changes in PDC and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS: The pre-intervention sample (n = 197) was young (mean age 33 years), evenly divided into English-speaking (48%) and non-English-speaking (52%), and low SES (66%). The post-intervention samples (n = 95) was similar except for a lower proportion of persons from a low SES (27%). Main body systems reported were musculoskeletal, skin, respiratory, digestive, urological and gynaecological. Post-intervention, PDC on health problems improved significantly from 31% to 63% at the problem level (P = 0.001) and from 65% to 79% at the body system level (P = 0.02). PDC on treatments received also improved significantly from 5.5 to 6 out of 7 treatment options (P = 0.003). There were no significant differences due to gender, SES and non-English-speaking background status.
CONCLUSION: PDC is a practical, useful and relevant indicator of effective patient-doctor communication. A well-presented summary of existing levels of PDC is an effective intervention to improve PDC and, by inference, patient-doctor communication on health problems and treatments. PDC should also be examined and reported in prevalence and incidence studies based on patient's reports and doctor's records.
METHODS: The study was carried out in a hospital-based primary care service in a lower socioeconomic status (SES) region of metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. A summary of the existing patient-doctor concordance on health problems and treatments was presented to doctors along with a questionnaire seeking their perceptions of and suggestions on how to act on the findings. In a pre- and post-intervention study, data were collected from consecutive new patients who completed a pre- and post-consultation questionnaire seeking information on the presenting complaint, patient-reported health problem, doctor-recorded health problem, treatments received, and patient expectations of and satisfaction with care. Diagnostic data were classified into body systems. Descriptive statistics were obtained and PDC measured. Following the intervention, data collection was repeated to detect any changes in PDC and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS: The pre-intervention sample (n = 197) was young (mean age 33 years), evenly divided into English-speaking (48%) and non-English-speaking (52%), and low SES (66%). The post-intervention samples (n = 95) was similar except for a lower proportion of persons from a low SES (27%). Main body systems reported were musculoskeletal, skin, respiratory, digestive, urological and gynaecological. Post-intervention, PDC on health problems improved significantly from 31% to 63% at the problem level (P = 0.001) and from 65% to 79% at the body system level (P = 0.02). PDC on treatments received also improved significantly from 5.5 to 6 out of 7 treatment options (P = 0.003). There were no significant differences due to gender, SES and non-English-speaking background status.
CONCLUSION: PDC is a practical, useful and relevant indicator of effective patient-doctor communication. A well-presented summary of existing levels of PDC is an effective intervention to improve PDC and, by inference, patient-doctor communication on health problems and treatments. PDC should also be examined and reported in prevalence and incidence studies based on patient's reports and doctor's records.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app