IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v17y1983i4p213-217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Behavioral science training in family practice residency education: A first evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Merkel, William T.
  • Nierenberg, Barry P.

Abstract

Although behavioral science training is an essential component of family practice residency education, there have been few evaluations of its effects. In this study, selected behaviors of senior residents and their patients in two different family practice residency programs were compared. One program emphasized behavioral science, the other did not. Residents in the more behaviorally oriented program had more positive attitudes toward both social factors in illness and the importance of a warm physician-patient relationship. In addition, these residents claimed to know more about non-pharmacologic treatments for depression and anxiety and felt more confident in their ability to handle them than their less behaviorally trained counterparts. In regard to patient care, patients of residents in the program which emphasized behavioral science were more likely to receive a psychosocial diagnosis and resident counseling or mental health referral than patients of residents in the program which did not. On a patient satisfaction questionnaire, patients of the two programs differed on only one subscale which concerned convenience of care. Although these early results are encouraging, behavioral science training needs continuing clarification and evaluation of its goals and accomplishments.

Suggested Citation

  • Merkel, William T. & Nierenberg, Barry P., 1983. "Behavioral science training in family practice residency education: A first evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 213-217, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:17:y:1983:i:4:p:213-217
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(83)90118-1
    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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:17:y:1983:i:4:p:213-217. 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.