Interpersonal perception in the context of doctor-patient relationships: A dyadic analysis of doctor-patient communication
Doctor-patient communication is an interpersonal process and essential to relationship-centered care. However, in many studies, doctors and patients are studied as if living in separate worlds. This study assessed whether: 1) doctors' perception of their communication skills is congruent with their patients' perception; and 2) patients of a specific doctor agree with each other about their doctor's communication skills. A cross-sectional study was conducted in three provinces in Canada with 91 doctors and their 1749 patients. Doctors and patients independently completed questions on the doctor's communication skills (content and process) after a consultation. Multilevel modeling provided an estimate of the patient and doctor variance components at both the dyad-level and the doctor-level. We computed correlations between patients' and doctors' perceptions at both levels to assess how congruent they were. Consensus among patients of a specific doctor was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The mean score of the rating of doctor's skills according to patients was 4.58, and according to doctors was 4.37. The dyad-level variance for the patient was .38 and for the doctor was .06. The doctor-level variance for theÂ patient ratings was .01 and for the doctor ratings, .18. The correlation between both the patients' and the doctors' skills' ratings scores at the dyad-level was weak. At the doctor-level, the correlation was not statistically significant. The ICC for patients' ratings was .03 and for the doctors' ratings .76. Overall, this study suggests that doctors and their patients have a very different perspective of the doctors' communication skills occurring during routine clinical encounters.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 70 (2010)
Issue (Month): 5 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:5:p:763-768. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.