Gordon Howard S, Street Richard L
Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
VA Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA.
Eval Health Prof. 2016 Dec;39(4):496-511. doi: 10.1177/0163278715625737. Epub 2016 Jan 10.
The purpose of this study was to compare several different measures of physician-patient communication. We compared data derived from different measures of three communication behaviors, patient participation, physician information giving, and physician participatory decision-making (PDM) style, from 83 outpatient visits to oncology or thoracic surgery clinics for pulmonary nodules or lung cancer. Communication was measured with rating scales completed by patients and physicians after the consultation and by two different groups of external observers who used rating scales or coded the frequency of communication behaviors, respectively, after listening to an audio recording of the consultation. Measures were compared using Pearson's correlations. Correlations of patients' and physicians' ratings of patient participation (r = .04) and physician PDM style (r = .03) were low and not significant (p > .0083, Bonferroni-adjusted). Correlations of observers' ratings with patients' or physicians' ratings for patient participation and physician PDM style were moderate or low (r = .15, .27, .07, and .01, respectively) but were not statistically significant (p > .0083, Bonferroni-adjusted). Correlations between observers' ratings and frequency measures were .31, .52, and .63 and were statistically significant with p values .005, <.0001, and <.0001, respectively, for PDM style, information giving, and patient participation. Our findings highlight the potential for using observers' ratings as an alternate measure of communication to more labor intensive frequency measures.
本研究的目的是比较几种不同的医患沟通测量方法。我们比较了来自83例肺结节或肺癌患者到肿瘤学或胸外科门诊就诊时,对三种沟通行为(患者参与、医生信息提供和医生参与式决策(PDM)风格)的不同测量方法所获得的数据。沟通情况通过患者和医生在会诊后填写的评分量表,以及两组不同的外部观察者来测量,这两组观察者分别在听取会诊录音后使用评分量表或对沟通行为的频率进行编码。使用Pearson相关性分析对这些测量方法进行比较。患者和医生对患者参与度(r = 0.04)和医生PDM风格(r = 0.03)的评分相关性较低且无统计学意义(p > 0.0083,经Bonferroni校正)。观察者对患者参与度和医生PDM风格的评分与患者或医生的评分之间的相关性为中度或低度(分别为r = 0.15、0.27、0.07和0.01),但无统计学意义(p > 0.0083,经Bonferroni校正)。观察者评分与频率测量之间的相关性分别为0.31、0.52和0.63,对于PDM风格、信息提供和患者参与度,p值分别为0.005、<0.0001和<0.0001,具有统计学意义。我们的研究结果突出了使用观察者评分作为沟通的替代测量方法以替代劳动强度更大的频率测量方法的潜力。