Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:23:35.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Verona-Medical Interview Classification System/Patient (VR-MICS/P). The instrument and its reliability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2011

Lidia Del Piccolo ,
Maria Grazia Benpensanti ,
Piero Bonini ,
Paola Cellerino ,
Anna Saltini  and
Christa Zimmermann
Lidia Del Piccolo*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina e Sanità Pubblica, Sezione di Psicologia Medica, Università di Verona, Verona
Maria Grazia Benpensanti
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina e Sanità Pubblica, Sezione di Psicologia Medica, Università di Verona, Verona
Piero Bonini
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina e Sanità Pubblica, Sezione di Psicologia Medica, Università di Verona, Verona
Paola Cellerino
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina e Sanità Pubblica, Sezione di Psicologia Medica, Università di Verona, Verona
Anna Saltini
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina e Sanità Pubblica, Sezione di Psicologia Medica, Università di Verona, Verona
Christa Zimmermann
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina e Sanità Pubblica, Sezione di Psicologia Medica, Università di Verona, Verona
*
Indirizzo per la corrispondenza: Dr.ssa L. Del Piccolo, Dipartimento di Medicina e Sanità Pubblica, di Psicologia Medica, Università di Verona, Ospedale Policlinico, 37134 Verona. Fax +39-045-585.871. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Objective – To assess the reliability and to describe the categories and the procedure to apply the VRMICS/P (Verona-Medical Interview Classification System/Patient). Setting – The interviews used for the reliability study were audio taped. Five general practitioners (GPs) working in two general practices in South-Verona recorded their consultations. Sample – 50 interviews selected randomly from 120, 10 for each GP. The selection criterion for the participating patients was a GHQ-12 score of 3 and the consultation for a new illness episode. Main outcome measures -The VR-MICS/P classifies patients' verbal behaviours into 21 categories, 15 of them are defined by form (cue or statement) and content. Procedure – Two trained raters classified 50 interviews. Before applying the classification system each interview is divided into units which are numbered to define doctor's and patient's sequence of speech. Results – The reliability of VR-MICS/P was satisfactory (Kappa 0.85). Similarity Index (Dice, 1945) for categories varied between 0.71 and 0.94. Reliability for form and content classification was satisfactory too (Similarity Index between 0.81 and 0.89 and between 0.84 and 0.94, respectively). Conclusions – The VR-MICS/P is a reliable measure for describing patients' verbal behaviours during medical interviews. It can be used together with the VR-MICS/D (Verona-Medical Interview Classification System/Doctor; Saltini et al., 1998) to describe the medical interview, the quality of doctor-patient interview and can be used as a measure of patient centredness.

Riassunto

Scopo – Presentare lo studio di attendibilità, nonché una descrizione riassuntiva delle categorie di classificazione e della procedura per l'applicazione del VR-MICS/P (Verona-Medical Interview Classification System/Patient). Setting – Le interviste utilizzate per lo studio di attendibilità sono state ricavate dalla trascrizione di audio registrazioni relative alle consultazioni di cinque medici di base che svolgono la loro attività in due ambulatori siti nel territorio di Verona-Sud. Campione – 50 interviste, selezionate in modo casuale tra 120, 10 per ciascun medico, relative a pazienti che sono giunti alia consultazione per un problema di salute nuovo e che hanno riportato un punteggio pari o superiore a tre al GHQ-12. Principali misure utilizzate – É stato applicato il VR-MICS/P per classificare i comportamenti verbali messi in atto dal paziente durante l'interazione con il medico. Il VR-MICS/P è composto di 21 categorie, 15 delle quali distinte per formulazione e contenuto. Procedura – Due rater hanno classificato le 50 interviste dopo aver svolto un periodo di formazione sull'utilizzo dello strumento. Ciascuna intervista, prima di essere classificata viene divisa in unità che, numerate, consentono di mantenere la sequenza d'ordine degli interventi di medico e paziente. Risultati – Il VR-MICS/P ha dimostrato una buona attendibilità (Kappa di Cohen pari a 0.85). L'indice di similarità (Dice, 1945) delle categorie è compreso fra 0.71 e 0.94. L'attendibilità, distinguendo la formulazione e il contenuto, è risultata altrettanto buona (indice di similarità compreso rispettivamente fra 0.81 e 0.89 e tra 0.84 e 0.94). Conclusione – Il VR-MICS/P è uno strumento attendibile che permette di classificare il comportamento verbale dei pazienti durante la consultazione medica. Se utilizzato in complemento al VR-MICS/D (Verona-Medical Interview Classification System/Patient; Saltini et al., 1998) consente di descrivere in modo economico e replicabile l'intervista medica, permettendo di evidenziare gli aspetti salienti dell'approccio centrato sul paziente.

Keywords

doctor-patient communicationinteraction analysis systemspatient-centred communicationcomunicazione medico-pazientesistemi di analisi dell'interazionecomunicazione centrata sul paziente.
Type
Articles
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 56 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

BIBLIOGRAFIA

Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
Bales, R.F. (1950). Interaction Process Analysis. Addison Wesley: Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Bellantuono, C., Fiorio, R., Zanotelli, R. & Tansella, M. (1987). Psychiatric screening in general practice in Italy. Social Psychiatry 22, 113–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanchard, C.G., Ruckdeschel, J.C., Blanchard, E.B., Arena, J.G., Saunders, N.L. & Malloy, E.D. (1983). Interactions between on oncologists and patients during rounds. Annuals of Internal Medicine 99, 694–699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J.B., Steward, M. & Tessier, S. (1995). Assessing Communication Between Patients and Doctors: a Manual for Scoring Patient-centred Communication. CSFM Working Papers Series, August.Google Scholar
Burchard, K.W. & Rowland-Morin, P.A. (1990). A new method of assessing the interpersonal skills of surgeons. Academic Medicine 65, 274.Google ScholarPubMed
Butow, P.N., Dunn, S.M., Tattersall, M.H.N. & Jones, Q.J. (1995). Computer-based interaction analyses of the cancer consultation. British Journal of Cancer 71, 1115–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, P.S. & Long, B.E.L. (1976). Doctors Talking to Patients: Study of the Verbal Behaviour of General Practitioners Consulting in their Surgeris. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Cape, J.D. (1996). Psychological treatment of emotional problems by general practitioners. British Journal of Medical Psychology 69, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cochran, W.G. (1954). Some methods of strengthening the common y, tests. Biometrics 10, 417–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted Kappa. Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 70, 213–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davenport, S., Goldberg, D. & Millar, T. (1987). How psychiatric disorders are missed during medical consultations Lancet 22, 439–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Piccolo, L. (1998). L'interazione medico-paziente: sistemi di analisi a confronto. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 7 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dice, L.R. (1945). Measures of the amount of the ecologic association between species. Ecology 26, 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, G.L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science 196, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, G.L. (1980). The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. American Journal of Psychiatry 137, 535–544.Google ScholarPubMed
Engel, G.L. (1988). How much longer must medicine's science be bound by a seventeenth century world view? In The Task of medicine (ed. White, K.). Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation: Merlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
Fleiss, J.L. (1981). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
Frankel, R. (1984). Talking in interviews. A reference for patientinitiated questione in physician-patient encounters. In Interactional Competence (ed. Psathas, G.). Ablex: Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
Freeling, P. & Tylee, A. (1992). Depression in general practice. In Handbook of Affective Disorders (ed. Paykel, E.S.). Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Gask, L. (1992). Training general practitioners to detect and manage emotional disorders. International Review of Psychiatry 4, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gask, L., McGrath, G., Goldberg, D. & Millar, T. (1987). Improving the psychiatric skills of established general practitioners: evaluation of group teaching. Medical Education 21, 362–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, D.P. (1972). The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire. Mandsley Monograph n.21. Oxford University Press: London.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. & Huxley, P. (1980). Mental Illness in the Community. The Pathway to Psychiatric Care. Tavistock Publications: London.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D., Stecle, J.J., Johnson, A. & Smith, C. (1982). Ability of primary care physicians to make accurate ratings of psychiatric symptoms. Archives of General Psychiatry 39, 829–833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, D.P., Jenkins, L., Millar, T. & Faragher, E.B. (1993). The ability of trainee general pratictioner to identify psychological distress ainong their patients. Psychological Medicine 23, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henbest, R.J. & Steward, M.A. (1989). Patient-centredness in the consultation. 1: A method for measurement. Family Practice 4, 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennrikus, D. (1986). An observational study of the detection of psychological disturbance by general practitioners. Tesi di dottorato. Università di Newcastle, New South Wales.Google Scholar
Katz, E., Gurwitch, M, Tsiyona, P. & Danet, B (1967). Doctor-patient exchanges: a diagnostic approach to organizations and professione. Human Relations 22, 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, R.J. & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maguire, P. (1985). Barriers to psychological care of the dying. British Medical Journal Clinical Research and Education 291, 1711–1713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, J., Goldberg, D.P. & Hillier, V.F. (1979). Determinants of the ability of general pratictioners to detect psychiatrie illness. Psychological Medicine 9, 337–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mechanic, D. (1962). The concept of illness behaviour. Journal of Chronic Disorders 15, 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, L.M.L., De Haes, J.C.J.M., Hoos, A.M. & Lanunes, F.B. (1995). Doctor-patient communication. A review of the literature. Social Science and Medicine 7, 903–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Punamaki, R. & Kokko, S.J. (1995). Content and predictors of consultation experience among Finnish primary care patients. Social Science and Medicine 40, 231–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roter, D.L. (1977). Patient participation in the patient-provider interaction: the effects of patient question asking on the quality of interaction, satisfaction and compliance. Health Education Monograph 5, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roter, D. (1984). Patient question asking in physician-patient interaction. Health Psychology 3, 395–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roter, D.L (1993). The Roter Method o Interaction Process Analysis. Johns Hopkins University: Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Roter, D.L & Frankel, R. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the evaluation of the medical dialogue. Social Sciences and Medicine 10, 1097–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roter, D., Hall, J. & Katz, N. (1988). Patient-physician communication. A descriptive summary of the literature. Patient Education and Counselling 12, 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roter, D., Lipkin, M. & Korsgaard, A. (1991). Sex differences in patients and physicians' communication during primary care medical visits. Medical Care 11, 1083–93.Google Scholar
Saltini, A., Cappellari, D., Cellerino, P., Del Piccolo, L. & Zimmermann, Ch. (1998). Uno strumento per la valutazione dell'intervista medica nel contesto della medicina generate: il VRMICS/D (Verona-Medical Interview Classification System/Doctor). Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 7, 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, W.B. (1978). Verbal response modes and dimensione of interpersonal roles. A method of discourse analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36, 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tylee, P. & , Freeling (1989). The recognition, diagnosis & acknowledgement of depressive disorders by general practitioners. In Depression. An Integrative Approach (ed. Paykel, E. and Herbst, K.). Hienemann: London.Google Scholar
Webb, S. & Llloyd, M. (1994). Prescribing and referral in general practice: a study of patients'expectations and doctors' actions. British Journal of General Practice, 44 165–169.Google ScholarPubMed
West, C. (1984). Ask me no questions: an analysis of queries and replies in physician-patient dialogues. In The Social Organization of Doctor-Patient Communication (ed. Fisher, S. and Todd, A.D.). Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Weston, W.W., Brown, J.B. & Stewart, M.A. (1989). Patient centred interviewing. Part. I: understanding patients' experiences. Canadian Family Physician 35, 147.Google ScholarPubMed
Wolraich, M.L., Albanese, M., Stone, G., Nesbitt, D., Thomson, E., Shymansky, J., Bartley, J. & Hanson, J. (1986). Medical Communication Behavior System. Medical Care 10, 891–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Ch. & Tansella, M. (1996). Psychosocial factors and physical illness in primary care: promoting the biopsychosocial model in medical practice. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 40, 351–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed