IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v21y2001i2p113-121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lack of Congruence in the Ratings of Patients’ Health Status by Patients and Their Physicians

Author

Listed:
  • Maria E. Suarez-Almazor

    (Baylor College of Medicine, Houston Center for Quality of Care and Utilization Studies, Houston, Texas)

  • Barbara Conner-Spady

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada)

  • Chris J. Kendall

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada)

  • Anthony S. Russell

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada)

  • Kenneth Skeith

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada)

Abstract

Purpose . The purpose of this study was to examine if physician assessments of their patients’ health status after the medical encounter are comparable to their patients’ self-assessment of their own health. Methods . Consecutive patients with musculoskeletal diseases were recruited when they attended 1 of the rheumatology outpatient clinics selected for the study. Five physicians participated in the study, 4 based at an academic center and 1 in the community. Patients were interviewed after seeing the physician; they completed health status questionnaires (mHAQ and SF-12) and rated their pain, worry about disease, and overall health status on visual analog scales. Standard gamble techniques were used to obtain patient utilities in relation to their health status, “gambling†on the probability of obtaining perfect health from an intervention with varying risks of death. After the medical encounter, physicians were asked to rate their patients’ health status with similar instruments and with standard gamble elicitation techniques, blinded to the patients’ responses. Results . A total of 105 patients participated in the study; 70% were female; mean age was 54 ± 16 years; 64% had a connective tissue disease, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis; and the other diseases in this group included soft tissue rheumatism, osteoarthritis, or low back pain. Statistically significant differences were observed between patient and physician ratings for pain, overall health, and standard gamble. On average, physicians rated their patients’ health status higher than the patients themselves and were less willing to gamble on the risk of death versus perfect health. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were low: 0.42 for pain, 0.11 for worry, 0.11 for overall health, and 0.04 for standard gamble utilities. Similar findings were observed when subgroup analysis was performed for individual physicians and for patients with connective tissue diseases. No specific patient characteristic consistently related to increased divergence in the ratings. Conclusions . These findings suggest that the communication between physicians and their patients at the time of the medical encounter needs to be enhanced. An understanding of their patients’ health perceptions may assist physicians in suggesting appropriate interventions, taking into account their patients’ benefit-risk preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria E. Suarez-Almazor & Barbara Conner-Spady & Chris J. Kendall & Anthony S. Russell & Kenneth Skeith, 2001. "Lack of Congruence in the Ratings of Patients’ Health Status by Patients and Their Physicians," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(2), pages 113-121, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:21:y:2001:i:2:p:113-121
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0102100204
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0102100204?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stewart, Moira A., 1984. "What is a successful doctor-patient interview? a study of interactions and outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 167-175, January.
    2. Street, Richard L., 1991. "Information-giving in medical consultations: The influence of patients' communicative styles and personal characteristics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 541-548, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Liana Fraenkel & Sarah McGraw, 2007. "Participation in Medical Decision Making: The Patients' Perspective," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 533-538, September.
    2. Dy, Sydney Morss & Rubin, Haya R. & Lehmann, Harold P., 2005. "Why do patients and families request transfers to tertiary care? a qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(8), pages 1846-1853, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zandbelt, Linda C. & Smets, Ellen M.A. & Oort, Frans J. & Godfried, Mieke H. & de Haes, Hanneke C.J.M., 2006. "Determinants of physicians' patient-centred behaviour in the medical specialist encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 899-910, August.
    2. Beach, Wayne A. & Easter, David W. & Good, Jeffrey S. & Pigeron, Elisa, 2005. "Disclosing and responding to cancer "fears" during oncology interviews," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 893-910, February.
    3. Ginetta Salvalaggio & Robert McKim & Marliss Taylor & T. Cameron Wild, 2013. "Patient–Provider Rapport in the Health Care of People Who Inject Drugs," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Kaarboe, Oddvar & Siciliani, Luigi, 2023. "Contracts for primary and secondary care physicians and equity-efficiency trade-offs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    6. Mandy Ryan, 1994. "Agency in Health Care: Lessons for Economists from Sociologists," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 207-217, April.
    7. Eggly, Susan & Penner, Louis A. & Greene, Meredith & Harper, Felicity W.K. & Ruckdeschel, John C. & Albrecht, Terrance L., 2006. "Information seeking during "bad news" oncology interactions: Question asking by patients and their companions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(11), pages 2974-2985, December.
    8. Gibson, Mark & Neil Jenkings, K. & Wilson, Rob & Purves, Ian, 2006. "Verbal prescribing in general practice consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 1684-1698, September.
    9. Timmermans, Stefan & Tietbohl, Caroline, 2018. "Fifty years of sociological leadership at Social Science and Medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 209-215.
    10. 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.
    11. Fraser, Suzanne & Fomiatti, Renae & Moore, David & Seear, Kate & Aitken, Campbell, 2020. "Is another relationship possible? Connoisseurship and the doctor–patient relationship for men who consume performance and image-enhancing drugs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    12. Street Jr., Richard L. & Gordon, Howard & Haidet, Paul, 2007. "Physicians' communication and perceptions of patients: Is it how they look, how they talk, or is it just the doctor?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 586-598, August.
    13. Tietbohl, Caroline K. & Bergen, Clara, 2022. "“I was gonna ask you”: How patients use agency framing to display engagement in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    14. Pamela L. Hudak & Richard M. Frankel & Clarence Braddock III & Rosane Nisenbaum & Paola Luca & Caitlin McKeever & Wendy Levinson, 2008. "Do Patients' Communication Behaviors Provide Insight into Their Preferences for Participation in Decision Making?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(3), pages 385-393, May.
    15. Murdoch, Jamie & Barnes, Rebecca & Pooler, Jillian & Lattimer, Valerie & Fletcher, Emily & Campbell, John L., 2015. "The impact of using computer decision-support software in primary care nurse-led telephone triage: Interactional dilemmas and conversational consequences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 36-47.

    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:sae:medema:v:21:y:2001:i:2:p:113-121. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.