When Physicians and Patients Think Alike: Patient-Centered Beliefs and Their Impact on Satisfaction and Trust

,

Original Research

When Physicians and Patients Think Alike: Patient-Centered Beliefs and Their Impact on Satisfaction and Trust

J Fam Pract. 2001 December;50(12):1057-1062

By

Edward Krupat, PhD

References

1. Epstein RM. The science of patient-centered care. J Fam Pract 2000;49:805-07.

2. Laine C, Davidoff F. Patient-centered medicine: a. A professional evolution. JAMA 1996;275:152-56.

3. Putnam SM, Lipkin Jr. M. The patient-centered interview: research support. In: Lipkin Jr. M, Putnam SM, editorseds. The medical interview. New York, NY: Springer; 1995;530:37.-

4. Stewart M, Brown JB, Weston WW, McWhinney IR, McWilliam CL, Freeman TR. Patient-centered medicine: transforming the clinical method. Thousand Oaks, CalifA: Sage;, 1995.

5. Byrne PS, Long BEL. Doctors talking to patients. London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office;, 1976.

6. Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, et al. The impact of patient-centered care on patient outcomes. J Fam Pract 2000;49:796-804.

7. Rao JK, Weinberger M, Kroenke K. Visit-specific expectations and patient-centered outcomes: a literature review. Arch Fam Med 2000;9:1148-55.

8. Levinson W, Roter DB, Mulloly JB, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physician-patient communication: The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians. JAMA 1997;2277:553-59.

9. Maguire P, Fairbairn S, Fletcher C. Consultation skills of young doctors: 1. Benefits of feedback training in interviewing as students persist. BMJ 1986;292:1573-76.

10. Garrity TF. Medical compliance and the clinician-patient relationship. Soc Sci Med 1981;15:215-22.

11. Carrese JA, Roberts LA. Bridging cultural differences in medical practice: t. The case of discussing negative information with Navajo patients. J Int Med 2000;15:92-96.

12. Doescher MP, Saver BG, Franks P, Fiscella K. Racial and ethnic disparities in perceptions of physician style and trust. Arch Fam Med 2000;9:1156-63.

13. Johnson TM, Hardt EJ, Kleinman A. Cultural factors in the medical interview in M. Lipkin M, SM Putnam SM, & A. Lazare A, eds (Eds.). The Medical Interview. 1995; New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1995.

14. Adelman RD, Greene MG, Charon R. Issues in physician-elderly patient interaction. Aging and Society 1991;11:127-48.

15. Hall JA, Roter DL, Milburn MA, Daltroy LH. Patients’ health as a predictor of physician and patient behavior in medical visits: a. A synthesis of four studies. Med Care 1996;34:1205-18.

16. Bertakis KD, Callahan EJ, Helms LJ, Azari R, Robbins JA. The effect of patient health status on physician practice style. Fam Med 1993;25:530-35.

17. Jamison Jr. Patient-practitioner perceptions: can chiropractors assume congruence? J Manip Physio Therapeutics 2000;23:409-13.

18. Temple W, Toews J, Fidler H, Lockyer JM, Taenzer P, Parboosingh J. Concordance in communication between surgeon and patient. Canadian J Surg 1998;41:439-45.

19. Laine C, Davidoff F, Lewis CE, Nelson EC, Nelson E, Kessler RC, Delbanco TL, et al. Important elements of outpatient care: a comparison of patients’ and physicians’ opinions. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:640-45.

20. Goldberg R, Guadagnoli E, Silliman RA, Glickmans A. Cancer patients’ concerns: congruence between patients and primary care physicians. J Cancer Educ 1990;5:193-99.

21. Starfield B, Wray C, Hess K, Gross R, Birk PS, D’Lugoff BC. The influence of patient-practitioner agreement on outcome of care. Am J Pub Health 1981;71:127-31.

22. Kravitz RL, Linn LS, Shapiro MF. Physician satisfaction under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. Med Care 1990;28:502-12.

23. Krupat E, Yeager CM, Putnam S. Patient role orientations, doctor-patient fit and visit satisfaction. Psych and Health 2000;15:707-19.

24. Krupat E, Rosenkranz SL, Yeager CM, Barnard K, Putnam SM, Inuii TM. The practice orientations of physicians and patients: the effects of doctor-patient congruence on satisfaction. Patient Ed Counseling 2000;39:49-59.

25. Krupat E, Hiam CM, Fleming MZ, Freeman P. Patient-centeredness and its correlates among first year medical students. Int J Psychiatry in Med 1999;29:347-56.

26. Thom DH, Campbell B. Patient-physician trust: an exploratory study. J Fam Pract 1997;44:169-76.

27. Gotler RS, Flocke SA, Goodwin MA, Zyzanski SJ, Murray TH, Stange KC. Facilitating participatory decision-making: what happens in real-world community practice? Med Care. 2000;38:1200-09.

Objective: Our goal was to identify physician and patient characteristics associated with patient-centered beliefs about the sharing of information and power, and to determine how these beliefs affect patients’ evaluations.

Study Design: Physicians provided demographic information and completed a scale assessing their beliefs about sharing information and power with their patients. A sample of their patients filled out the same scale and made evaluations of their physicians before and after a target visit.

Population: Physicians and patients in a large multispecialty group practice and a model health maintenance organization were included. Forty-five physicians in internal medicine, family practice, and cardiology participated, as well as 909 of their patients who had a significant concern.

Outcomes Measured: We measured trust in the physician pre-visit, and visit satisfaction and physician endorsement immediately post-visit.

Results: Among patients, patient-centered beliefs (a preference for information and control) were associated with being female, white, younger, more educated, and having a higher income; among physicians these beliefs were unrelated to sex, ethnicity, or experience. The patients of patient-centered physicians were no more trusting or endorsing of their physicians, and they were not more satisfied with the target visit. However, patients whose beliefs were congruent with their physicians’ beliefs were more likely to trust and endorse them, even though they were not more satisfied with the target visit.

Conclusions: The extent of congruence between physicians’ and patients’ beliefs plays an important role in determining how patients evaluate their physicians, although satisfaction with a specific visit and overall trust may be determined differently.

A patient-centered approach to care has been widely advocated^1-5 Although there are several dimensions to patient-centeredness, one key element involves patient participation and the sharing of power and information between the patient and physician. Physicians who take a patient-centered orientation approach are more likely to treat them as partners, and assist them in making informed choices among several options. This approach has been associated with a range of positive outcomes, such as heightened patient satisfaction, better adherence, and improved health outcomes.^6-10

Yet in spite of the general effectiveness of patient-centeredness, it is reasonable to ask whether a one-size-fits-all approach to patient care is the best one. Some patients—such as the elderly, or patients of certain ethnic backgrounds, for example—may desire a physician whose style is more structured and who provides more guidance.^11-14 Patients who are sick or have serious health concerns may also want their physicians to provide more direction.^15,16 Therefore, while accepting the overall value of patient-centeredness, some physicians and researchers have advocated that the degree of “fit” between patients and physicians, (the extent to which the physician holds attitudes and beliefs that are congruent with those of the patient^17,21) should have an independent effect upon patients’ reactions to their health care providers.

Our study involves the measurement of patient-centeredness among both physicians and patients, in particular beliefs about the sharing of power and information. We asked what personal characteristics were associated with patient-centered beliefs among physicians and patients, and investigated the extent to which patients felt positively about clinicians who hold matching opinions about power and information sharing.

Methods

The data we report come from the Physician Patient Communication Project, a large observational study conducted in the Sacramento, California, metropolitan area. Patients in the study were surveyed before and immediately after a target outpatient visit. The physicians provided data before and immediately after the same visits.

Physician Sampling and Data Collection

All physicians and patients in the study were affiliated with one of the 2 major health care systems in the region, the University of California, Davis, Medical Group (UCDMG) or Kaiser Permanente (KP). All physicians were involved in direct patient care at least 20 hours per week in family medicine, internal medicine, or cardiology. Forty-five physicians took part in the study (22 from UCDMG, 23 from KP). Eighteen practiced general internal medicine; 16 were family physicians; and 11 were cardiologists. The UCDMG and KP physicians did not differ significantly with regard to age or sex.

All participating physicians filled out the Clinician Background Questionnaire, which contained basic demographic questions, a 15-item work satisfaction scale,²² and the 9-item Sharing subscale of the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS).^23-25The PPOS, which has been shown to have good reliability and validity, measures the beliefs of patients and physicians along a dimension that ranges from patient-centered to physician-centered. The sharing subscale of the PPOS assesses beliefs toward sharing information (eg, “It is often best for patients if they do not have a full explanation of their medical condition.”) and power and control (eg, “The doctor is the one who should decide what gets talked about during a visit.”) on a 6-point Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A higher score indicates an orientation that is more patient-centered (ie, more approving of sharing power and information sharing).