Healthcare professional–patient communication

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511543579.096

Healthcare professional–patient communication

from Psychology, health and illness

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2014

Edited by

John Weinman and

John Weinman: Affiliation:
King's College London
Susan Ayers: Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Andrew Baum: Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Chris McManus: Affiliation:
St Mary's Hospital Medical School
Stanton Newman: Affiliation:
University College and Middlesex School of Medicine
Kenneth Wallston: Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University School of Nursing
John Weinman: Affiliation:
United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas's
Robert West: Affiliation:
St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Effective healthcare professional–patient communication is necessary to ensure not only that the patients' problems and concerns are understood by the healthcare professional (HCP) but also that relevant information, advice and treatment is received and acted upon by the patient. HCP–patient communication has been the object of considerable research, which has attempted not only to describe the interaction processes involved but also to show how these affect a range of patient outcomes. Early research revealed quite high levels of patient dissatisfaction which were often associated with insufficient information, poor understanding of the medical advice and subsequent reluctance or inability to follow recommended treatment or advice (Korsch & Negrete, 1972). The development of relatively unobtrusive audio- and video-recording techniques allowed researchers to obtain an ‘inside view’ of the consultation and many studies have analyzed the process of the consultation and attempted to relate process variables or characteristics to outcome. However, these studies, while identifying important themes, have not always been successful in making clear links between process and outcome (Stiles, 1989). One reason for this is that patients vary in their expectations and preferences. As a result, many current frameworks for understanding HCP–patient communication (e.g. Friedrikson, 1993) are based on the relations between inputs (i.e. the attitudes, beliefs, expectations, etc., which patient and HCP bring to the consultation), process (the nature of the encounter) and outcome (the short and longer-term effects on the patient).

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine , pp. 435 - 439

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511543579.096 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barry, C., Bradley, C., Britten, N., Stevenson, F.A. & Barber, N. (2000). Patients' unvoiced agendas in general practice consultations. British Medical Journal, 320, 1246–50.Google Scholar

Braddock, C.H. III,, Fihn, S.D., Levinson, W., Jonsen, A.R. & Pearlman, R.A. (1997). How doctors and patients discuss routine clinical decisions: informed decision making in the outpatient setting. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12, 339–45.Google Scholar

Campion, P., Foulkes, J., Neighbour, R. & Tate, P. (2002). Patient-centredness in the MRCGP videoexamination: analysis of large cohort. British Medical Journal, 325, 691–2.Google Scholar

Cooper, L.A. & Roter, D.L. (2003). Patient–Provider communication: the effect of race and ethnicity on process and outcomes of health care. In Smedley, B.D., Stith, A.Y. & Nelson, A.R., (Eds.). Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care (pp. 552–93). Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

Friedrikson, L.G. (1993). Development of an integrative model for the medical consultation. Health Communication, 5, 225–37.Google Scholar

Greenfield, S., Kaplan, S. & Ware, J.E. (1985). Expanding patient involvement in care: effects on patient outcomes. Annals of Internal Medicine, 102, 520–8.Google Scholar

Grol, R., Maeseneer, J., Whitfield, M. & Mokkink, H. (1990). Disease-centred versus patient-centred attitudes: comparison of general practitioners in Belgium, Britain and the Netherlands. Family Practice, 7, 100–4.Google Scholar

Harrington, J., Noble, L. & Newman, S.P. (2004). Improving patients' communication with doctors: a systematic review of intervention studies. Patient Education and Counselling, 52, 7–16.Google Scholar

Hogbin, B. & Fallowfield, L.J. (1989). Getting it taped: the bad news consultation with cancer patients. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 41, 330–3.Google Scholar

Johnston, M. & Vogele, C. (1993). Benefits of psychological preparation for surgery: a meta-analysis. Annals of Behavioural Medicine, 15, 245–56.Google Scholar

Kinmonth, A.L., Woodcock, A., Griffin, S., Spiegal, N., Campbell, M. & Diabetes Care from Diagnosis Team, (1998). Randomised controlled trial of patient centred care of diabetes in general practice: impact on current well-being and future risk. British Medical Journal, 317, 1202–8.Google Scholar

Korsch, B.M. & Negrete, V.F. (1972). Doctor–patient communication. Scientific American, 227, 66–74.Google Scholar

Krantz, D., Baum, A. & Wideman, M. (1980). Assessment of preferences for self treatment and information in health care. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 977–90.Google Scholar

Lewin, S., Skea, Z., Entwhistle, V., Zwarenstein, M. & Dick, J. (2004). Intervention for providers to promote a patient centred approach in clinical consultations. The Cochrane Library, Issue 1. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Ley, P. (1988). Communicating with patients. London: Croom Helm.

Marteau, T.M. & Lerman, C. (2001). Genetic risk and behavioural change. British Medical Journal, 22, 1056–9.Google Scholar

McClement, S.E. & Hack, T.F. (1999). Audio-taping the oncology treatment consultation: a literature review. Patient Education and Counselling, 36(3), 229–38.Google Scholar

Michie, S., Miles, J. & Weinman, J. (2003). Patient-centredness in chronic illness: what is it and does it matter?Patient Education and Counselling, 51, 197–206.Google Scholar

Miller, S.M. (1995). Monitoring versus blunting styles of coping with cancer influence the information patients want and need about their disease. Implications for cancer screening and management. Cancer, 76(2), 167–77.Google Scholar

Roter, D. (1989). Which facets of communications have strong effects on outcome: a meta-analysis. In Stewart, M. & D. Roter (Eds.). Communicating with medical patients (pp. 283–96). Newbury Park: Sage.

Roter, D. & Hall, J.A. (1989). Studies of doctor–patient interactions. Annual Review of Public Health, 10, 163–80.Google Scholar

Roter, D.L., Stewart, M., Putnam, S.M.et al. (1997). Communication patterns of primary care physicians. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 350–6.Google Scholar

Starfield, B., Wray, C., Hess, K.et al. (1981). The influence of patient–practitioner agreement on outcome of care. American Journal of Public Health, 71, 127–31.Google Scholar

Stewart, M.A. (1995). Effective physician–patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 152, 1423–33.Google Scholar

Stiles, W.B. (1989). Evaluating medical interview process, components: null correlations with outcomes may be misleading. Medical Care, 27, 212–20.Google Scholar

Williams, S., Weinman, J., Dale, J. & Newman, S. (1995). Patient expectations: what do primary care patients want from the GP and how far does meeting patient expectations affect patient satisfaction?Family Practice, 12, 193–201.Google Scholar

Book contents

Healthcare professional–patient communication

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive