» Articles » PMID: 34111197

Variance Components of Ratings of Physician-patient Communication: A Generalizability Theory Analysis

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2021 Jun 10
PMID 34111197
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The ratings of physician-patient communication are an important indicator of the quality of health care delivery and provide guidance for many important decisions in the health care setting and in health research. But there is no gold standard to assess physician-patient communication. Thus, depending on the specific measurement condition, multiple sources of variance may contribute to the total score variance of ratings of physician-patient communication. This may systematically impair the validity of conclusions drawn from rating data.

Objective: To examine the extent to which different measurement conditions and rater perspectives, respectively contribute to the variance of physician-patient communication ratings.

Methods: Variance components of ratings of physician-patient communication gained from 32 general practitioners and 252 patients from 25 family practices in Germany were analyzed using generalizability theory. The communication dimensions "shared decision making", "effective and open communication" and "satisfaction" were considered.

Results: Physician-patient communication ratings most substantially reflect unique rater-perspective and communication dimension combinations (32.7% interaction effect). The ratings also represented unique physician and rater-perspective combinations (16.3% interaction effect). However, physicians' communication behavior and the observed communication dimensions revealed only a low extent of score variance (1% physician effect; 3.7% communication dimension effect). Approximately half of the variance remained unexplained (46.2% three-way interaction, confounded with error).

Conclusion: The ratings of physician-patient communication minimally reflect physician communication skills in general. Instead, these ratings exhibit primarily differences among physicians and patients in their tendency to perceive shared decision making and effective and open communication and to be satisfied with communication, regardless of the communication behavior of physicians. Rater training and assessing low inferential ratings of physician-patient communication dimensions should be considered when subjective aspects of rater perspectives are not of interest.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the Acceptance and Usability of an Independent, Noncommercial Search Engine for Medical Information: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study and User Behavior Tracking Analysis.

Specht L, Scheible R, Boeker M, Farin-Glattacker E, Kampel N, Schmolz M JMIR Hum Factors. 2025; 12:e56941.

PMID: 39847765 PMC: 11803324. DOI: 10.2196/56941.


Association between Caregiver-perceived Health Care Provider Cultural Sensitivity and Child Health Status in the National Survey of Children's Health: 2016-2020.

Chase-Begay D, Adam C, Williams E, Semmens E J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2024; 35(3):951-961.

PMID: 39129612 PMC: 11484358.


Physician-patient agreement on physicians' communication skills and visit satisfaction in dermatology clinics: a one-with-many design.

Kwissa-Gajewska Z, Kroemeke A Health Psychol Rep. 2023; 10(1):68-81.

PMID: 38084373 PMC: 10501424. DOI: 10.5114/hpr.2021.110574.


Determining the Development Strategy and Suited Adoption Paths for the Core Competence of Shared Decision-Making Tasks through the SAA-NRM Approach.

Yu S, Wang H, Chang M, Cheng T, Chen J, Lin C Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(20).

PMID: 36293890 PMC: 9602580. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192013310.


Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.

Elliott T, Asche S, OConnor P, Dehmer S, Ekstrom H, Truitt A Med Decis Making. 2022; 42(6):808-821.

PMID: 35209775 PMC: 9283203. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221082083.

References
1.
Hoyt W . Rater bias in psychological research: when is it a problem and what can we do about it?. Psychol Methods. 2000; 5(1):64-86. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989x.5.1.64. View

2.
Brouwers M, Rasenberg E, van Weel C, Laan R, Van Weel-Baumgarten E . Assessing patient-centred communication in teaching: a systematic review of instruments. Med Educ. 2017; 51(11):1103-1117. PMC: 5655924. DOI: 10.1111/medu.13375. View

3.
Lindsay S, Alokozai A, Eppler S, Fox P, Curtin C, Gardner M . Patient Preferences for Shared Decision Making: Not All Decisions Should Be Shared. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019; 28(10):419-426. PMC: 8080702. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00146. View

4.
Aelbrecht K, Hanssens L, Detollenaere J, Willems S, Deveugele M, Pype P . Determinants of physician-patient communication: The role of language, education and ethnicity. Patient Educ Couns. 2018; 102(4):776-781. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.11.006. View

5.
Kasper J, Heesen C, Kopke S, Fulcher G, Geiger F . Patients' and observers' perceptions of involvement differ. Validation study on inter-relating measures for shared decision making. PLoS One. 2011; 6(10):e26255. PMC: 3197148. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026255. View