IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v55y2002i2p283-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of general practitioners' patient-centredness on patients' post-consultation satisfaction and enablement

Author

Listed:
  • Mead, Nicola
  • Bower, Peter
  • Hann, Mark

Abstract

The concept of patient-centredness is complex, but is generally seen as an approach that emphasises, on the part of the health professional, attention to patients' psychosocial (as well as physical) needs, the use of psychotherapeutic behaviours to convey a sense of partnership and positive regard, and active facilitation of patients' involvement in decision-making about their care. To date, there is little consistent evidence that doctors' use of a 'patient-centred' consulting style leads to better patient outcomes. However, previous studies have been limited by a lack of conceptual clarity and methodological consensus, and by the absence of a clear theoretical framework linking patient-centredness to outcomes. In this study, three specific, conceptually distinct dimensions of a patient-centred consulting style were operationalised: the 'biopsychosocial perspective', 'sharing power and responsibility' and the 'therapeutic alliance'. These dimensions were measured in terms of three 'socio-emotional' and two 'task-relevant' general practitioner (GP) behaviours using in-depth observational techniques applied to 173 videotaped GP consultations. Theoretically-derived hypotheses were tested concerning relationships between these patient-centred behaviours and two different consultation outcomes: patient satisfaction and enablement. Multivariate regression showed that GPs' patient-centred behaviours did not predict either outcome. The robustness of these findings is considered within the context of study strengths and weaknesses, and implications for future research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Mead, Nicola & Bower, Peter & Hann, Mark, 2002. "The impact of general practitioners' patient-centredness on patients' post-consultation satisfaction and enablement," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 283-299, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:55:y:2002:i:2:p:283-299
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(01)00171-X
    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. Augustine Adomah-Afari & Theophilus Maloreh-Nyamekye, 2019. "Enhancing Patient Satisfaction - Relationship Marketing Strategies of Two Specialist Hospitals in Accra, Ghana," International Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 4(2), pages 213-231, June.
    2. Jacobi Elliott & Heather McNeil & Jessica Ashbourne & Kelsey Huson & Veronique Boscart & Paul Stolee, 2016. "Engaging Older Adults in Health Care Decision-Making: A Realist Synthesis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 383-393, October.
    3. Hubert, Philipp & Abdel Hadi, Sascha & Mojzisch, Andreas & Häusser, Jan Alexander, 2022. "The effects of organizational climate on adherence to guidelines for COVID-19 prevention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    4. Tian, Xiaoli & Zhang, Sai, 2022. "Expert or experiential knowledge? How knowledge informs situated action in childcare practices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    5. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.
    6. Mara Gorli & Serena Barello, 2021. "Patient Centredness, Values, Equity and Sustainability: Professional, Organizational and Institutional Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-7, November.
    7. Zandbelt, Linda C. & Smets, Ellen M.A. & Oort, Frans J. & de Haes, Hanneke C.J.M., 2005. "Coding patient-centred behaviour in the medical encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 661-671, August.
    8. Achim Siegel & Anna T. Ehmann & Ingo Meyer & Oliver Gröne & Wilhelm Niebling & Peter Martus & Monika A. Rieger, 2019. "PEN-13: A New Generic 13-Item Questionnaire for Measuring Patient Enablement (German Version)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1, December.
    9. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    10. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.

    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:55:y:2002:i:2:p:283-299. 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.