IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v54y2002i8p1215-1224.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Users' understanding of medical knowledge in general practice

Author

Listed:
  • Chapple, Alison
  • Campbell, Stephen
  • Rogers, Anne
  • Roland, Martin

Abstract

Much emphasis is now being placed on the quality of medical care, and various ways are being developed to assess the medical knowledge of general practitioners. It is increasingly recognised that the users perspective on health care is important, and that the views of health care professionals do not and cannot represent patients' views. In order to explore whether or not a large-scale survey, which asked people to rate their doctors' medical knowledge, yielded meaningful results, this paper draws on findings from a study involving in-depth interviews with 26 lay people who had already completed the General Practice Assessment Survey questionnaire. When completing the questionnaires, patients had been asked to consider the 'technical care' provided by their general practitioners and to make a judgement about their doctors' medical knowledge. When interviewed at a later date, some people explained that they defined medical knowledge as knowledge of 'disease and treatments', while others defined it as knowledge of the 'whole person', and some defined a knowledgeable doctor as one who would acknowledge uncertainty. Patients appeared to have made judgements about their general practitioners' medical knowledge based on many factors, such as their experience of illness, perceptions of professional training, contact with other health care professionals in both primary and secondary care, and exposure to the media. The paper discusses the nature of medical knowledge, and concludes that although patient surveys are useful for the evaluation of interpersonal care and access to care, asking patients about their general practitioners' medical knowledge may yield invalid results. This is partly because patients defined medical knowledge in different ways, and partly because it appears that relatively few patients had enough knowledge about their own particular illnesses, or about possible alternative treatments, to make informed judgements about their general practitioners' medical knowledge.

Suggested Citation

  • Chapple, Alison & Campbell, Stephen & Rogers, Anne & Roland, Martin, 2002. "Users' understanding of medical knowledge in general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(8), pages 1215-1224, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:54:y:2002:i:8:p:1215-1224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(01)00091-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Davidson, Joyce, 2007. "Caring and daring to complain: An examination of UK national phobics society members' perception of primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 560-571, August.
    2. Campbell, C. & Muncer, S. J., 2005. "The causes of low back pain: a network analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 409-419, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:54:y:2002:i:8:p:1215-1224. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.