Raising positive expectations helps patients with minor ailments: a cross-sectional study

The effect of shared decision-making on recovery from non-chronic aspecific low back pain in primary care; a post-hoc analysis from the patient, physician and observer perspectives

Background

Although shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly accepted in healthcare and has demonstrated merits for several psychological outcomes, the effect on recovery from somatic conditions is still subject to debate. The objective of this study is to measure the effect of SDM on recovery from non-chronic aspecific low back pain (LBP).

Methods

This study is a post-hoc analysis of data from a cluster-randomised trial that evaluated the effectiveness of SDM on recovery in patients with non-chronic aspecific LBP. In this analysis, we re-evaluate the impact of SDM from three perspectives: that of external observers, participating GPs and participating patients. Recovery was measured with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and with the Roland Morris Disability questionnaire (RMD) and defined as a VAS < 30 and an RMD < 4. Logistic regression was used to analyse the effect of SDM on recovery at 6 and 26 weeks.

Results

At 26 weeks, 105 (74%) of all 176 included patients had recovered. No significant effect of SDM on recovery at 6 or 26 weeks after the consultation was found when considering SDM from an observer perspective or a patient perspective. From a GP perspective SDM had a significant effect on recovery, but at 26 weeks only, and with the lowest probability of recovery observed at a medium level of GP-perceived SDM.

Conclusions

We found no evidence that SDM as perceived by the patient or by external observation improves recovery from non-chronic aspecific low back pain. The long-term recovery may be better for patients in whom the GP perceives SDM during their consultations. Further research should highlight the hierarchy and the relation between the perspectives, which is needed to come to an integral effect evaluation of SDM.

Trial registration

The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) number: NTR1960.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01624-y.

Developing a Taxonomy of Communication Techniques and Aids Used By Healthcare Providers During Patient Consultations: Protocol for a Systematic Review

Background

Currently, there is no available standardized taxonomy of defined communication techniques and aids used by healthcare providers during patient consultations. It is challenging to identify communication techniques that contribute to effective healthcare provider and patient consultations and to replicate communication interventions in research.

Objective

The aim of this paper is to describe a protocol for the development and pilot of a taxonomy of communication techniques and aids used by healthcare providers during patient consultations.

Methods

A systematic review will be completed to identify eligible studies. Extracted techniques and aids will be organized into a preliminary taxonomy by a multidisciplinary team. The preliminary taxonomy will be piloted by two groups: research assistants trained in taxonomy application and healthcare providers and healthcare professional students not trained in taxonomy use. The pilot will use custom developed video footage of health provider and patient interactions. Interrater validity and interview feedback will be used to inform a Delphi panel of multidisciplinary healthcare providers and patient experts when they convene to finalize the preliminary taxonomy.

Results

This study was funded in November 2017 by the Monash University Interdisciplinary Research Seed Funding Scheme. Data collection commenced in March 2018, and data analysis is in progress. We expect the results to be published in 2021.

Conclusions

This is the first known attempt to develop a defined and standardized taxonomy of communication techniques and aids used by healthcare providers in patient consultations. The findings will be used to inform future research by providing a detailed taxonomy of healthcare providers’ communication techniques and standardized definitions.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/16801

Testing a Model of Consultation-based Reassurance and Back Pain Outcomes With Psychological Risk as Moderator: A Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Reassurance is an essential part of treatment for low back pain (LBP), but evidence on effective methods to deliver reassurance remains scarce. The interaction between consultation-based reassurance and patients' psychological risk is unknown. Our objective was to investigate the relationship between consultation-based reassurance and clinical outcomes at follow-up, in people with and without psychological risk.

METHODS

We tested the associations between specific reassurance components (data gathering, relationship building, generic reassurance, and cognitive reassurance), patients' psychological risk (the presence of depression, anxiety, catastrophizing, or fear-avoidance), and postconsultation outcomes including, satisfaction and enablement, disability, pain, and mood at 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Adjusted linear regression models using data from patients who had recently consulted for LBP in primary care (n=142 in 43 practices) indicated that all reassurance components were strongly associated with increased satisfaction, whereas generic reassurance was significantly associated with postconsultation enablement. Generic reassurance was also associated with lower pain at 3 months, whereas cognitive reassurance was associated with increased pain. A significant interaction was observed between generic reassurance and psychological risk for depression at 3 months: high rates of generic reassurance were associated with lower depression in low-risk patients, but with higher rates of depression for high-risk groups.

DISCUSSION

The findings support the hypothesis that different components of reassurance are associated with specific outcomes, and that psychological risk moderates this relationship for depression. Clinicians reassuring behaviors might therefore have the potential to improve outcomes in people with LBP, especially for patients with higher psychological risk profiles.

Specifying the effects of physician's communication on patients' outcomes: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To experimentally test the effects of physician's affect-oriented communication and inducing expectations on outcomes in patients with menstrual pain.

METHODS

Using a 2×2 RCT design, four videotaped simulated medical consultations were used, depicting a physician and a patient with menstrual pain. In the videos, two elements of physician's communication were manipulated: (1) affect-oriented communication (positive: warm, emphatic; versus negative: cold, formal), and (2) outcome expectation induction (positive versus uncertain). Participants (293 women with menstrual pain), acting as analogue patients, viewed one of the four videos. Pre- and post video participants' outcomes (anxiety, mood, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and satisfaction) were assessed.

RESULTS

Positive affect-oriented communication reduced anxiety (p<0.001), negative mood (p=0.001), and increased satisfaction (p<0.001) compared to negative affect-oriented communication. Positive expectations increased feelings of self-efficacy (p<0.001) and outcome expectancies (p<0.001), compared to uncertain expectations, but did not reduce anxiety. The combination of positive affect-oriented communication and a positive expectation reduced anxiety (p=0.02), increased outcome expectancies (p=0.01) and satisfaction (p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Being empathic and inducing positive expectations have distinct and combined effects, demonstrating that both are needed to influence patients' outcomes for the best.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Continued medical training is needed to harness placebo-effects of medical communication into practice.

Validation of the generic medical interview satisfaction scale: the G-MISS questionnaire

Background

Patients have about seven medical consultations a year. Despite the importance of medical interviews in the healthcare process, there is no generic instrument to assess patients’ experiences in general practices, medical specialties, and surgical specialties. The main objective was to validate a questionnaire assessing patients’ experiences with medical consultations in various practices.

Method

The G-MISS study was a prospective multi-center trial that enrolled patients from May to July 2016. A total of 2055 patients were included from general practices, medical specialties, and surgical specialties. Patients filled out a questionnaire assessing various aspects of their experience and satisfaction within 1 week after their medical interview. The validation process relied on item response theory. Internal validity was examined using exploratory factorial analysis. The statistical model used the root mean square error of approximation, confirmatory fit index, and standard root mean square residual as fit indices. Scalability and reliability were assessed with the Rasch model and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, respectively. Scale properties across the three subgroups were explored with differential item functioning.

Results

The G-MISS final questionnaire contained 16 items, structured in three dimensions of patients’ experiences: “Relief”, “Communication”, and “Compliance”. A global index of patients’ experiences was computed as the mean of the dimension scores. All fit indices from the statistical model were satisfactory (RMSEA = 0.03, CFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.06). The overall scalability had a good fit to the Rasch model. Each dimension was reliable, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.73 to 0.86. Differential item functioning across the three consultation settings was negligible. Patients undergoing medical or surgical specialties reported higher scores in the “Relief” dimension compared with general practice (83.0 ± 11.6 or 82.4 ± 11.6 vs. 73.2 ± 16.7; P < .001). A consultation shorter than 5 min correlated with low patient satisfaction in “Relief” and “Communication” and in the global index, P < .001.

Conclusions

The G-MISS questionnaire is a valid and reliable questionnaire for assessing patients’ experiences after consultations with general practitioners, medical specialists, and surgical specialists. The multidimensional structure relies on item response theory and assesses different aspects of patients’ experiences that could be useful in clinical practice and research settings.

Behind the scenes of the PRIME intervention: designing a complex intervention to improve malaria care at public health centres in Uganda

Background

In Uganda, health system challenges limit access to good quality healthcare and contribute to slow progress on malaria control. We developed a complex intervention (PRIME), which was designed to improve quality of care for malaria at public health centres.

Objective

Responding to calls for increased transparency, we describe the PRIME intervention's design process, rationale, and final content and reflect on the choices and challenges encountered during the design of this complex intervention.

Design

To develop the intervention, we followed a multistep approach, including the following: 1) formative research to identify intervention target areas and objectives; 2) prioritization of intervention components; 3) review of relevant evidence; 4) development of intervention components; 5) piloting and refinement of workshop modules; and 6) consolidation of the PRIME intervention theories of change to articulate why and how the intervention was hypothesized to produce desired outcomes. We aimed to develop an intervention that was evidence-based, grounded in theory, and appropriate for the study context; could be evaluated within a randomized controlled trial; and had the potential to be scaled up sustainably.

Results

The process of developing the PRIME intervention package was lengthy and dynamic. The final intervention package consisted of four components: 1) training in fever case management and use of rapid diagnostic tests for malaria (mRDTs); 2) workshops in health centre management; 3) workshops in patient-centred services; and 4) provision of mRDTs and antimalarials when stocks ran low.

Conclusions

The slow and iterative process of intervention design contrasted with the continually shifting study context. We highlight the considerations and choices made at each design stage, discussing elements we included and why, as well as those that were ultimately excluded. Reflection on and reporting of ‘behind the scenes’ accounts of intervention design may improve the design, assessment, and generalizability of complex interventions and their evaluations.

"Doctor, please tell me it's nothing serious": an exploration of patients' worrying and reassuring cognitions using stimulated recall interviews

Background

Many patients who consult their GP are worried about their health, but there is little empirical data on strategies for effective reassurance. To gain a better understanding of mechanisms for effective patient reassurance, we explored cognitions underlying patients’ worries, cognitions underlying reassurance and factors supporting patients’ reassuring cognitions.

Methods

In a qualitative study, we conducted stimulated recall interviews with 21 patients of 12 different GPs shortly after their consultation. We selected consultations in which the GPs aimed to reassure worried patients and used their videotaped consultation as a stimulus for the interview. The interviews were analysed with thematic coding and by writing interpretive summaries.

Results

Patients expressed four different core cognitions underlying their concerns: ‘I have a serious illness’, ‘my health problem will have adverse physical effects’, ‘my treatment will have adverse effects’ and ‘my health problem will negatively impact my life’. Patients mentioned a range of person-specific and context-specific cognitions as reasons for these core cognitions. Patients described five core reassuring cognitions: ‘I trust my doctor’s expertise’, ‘I have a trusting and supporting relationship with my doctor’, ‘I do not have a serious disease’, ‘my health problem is harmless’ and ‘my health problem will disappear.’ Factors expressed as reasons for these reassuring cognitions were GPs’ actions during the consultation as well as patients’ pre-existing cognitions about their GP, the doctor-patient relationship and previous events. Patients’ worrying cognitions were counterbalanced by specific reassuring cognitions, i.e. worrying and reassuring cognitions seemed to be interrelated.

Conclusions

Patients described a wide range of worrying cognitions, some of which were not expressed during the consultation. Gaining a thorough understanding of the specific cognitions and tailoring reassuring strategies to them should be an effective way of achieving reassurance. The identified reassuring cognitions can guide doctors in applying these strategies in their daily practice.

Patients' expectations of private osteopathic care in the UK: a national survey of patients

Background

Patients’ expectations of osteopathic care have been little researched. The aim of this study was to quantify the most important expectations of patients in private UK osteopathic practices, and the extent to which those expectations were met or unmet.

Methods

The study involved development and application of a questionnaire about patients’ expectations of osteopathic care. The questionnaire drew on an extensive review of the literature and the findings of a prior qualitative study involving focus groups exploring the expectations of osteopathic patients. A questionnaire survey of osteopathic patients in the UK was then conducted. Patients were recruited from a random sample of 800 registered osteopaths in private practice across the UK. Patients were asked to complete the questionnaire which asked about 51 aspects of expectation, and post it to the researchers for analysis.

The main outcome measures were the patients-perceived level of expectation as assessed by the percentage of positive responses for each aspect of expectation, and unmet expectation as computed from the proportion responding that their expectation “did not happen”.

Results

1649 sets of patient data were included in the analysis. Thirty five (69%) of the 51 aspects of expectation were prevalent, with listening, respect and information-giving ranking highest. Only 11 expectations were unmet, the most often unmet were to be made aware that there was a complaints procedure, to find it difficult to pay for osteopathic treatment, and perceiving a lack of communication between the osteopath and their GP.

Conclusions

The findings reflected the complexity of providing osteopathic care and meeting patients’ expectations. The results provided a generally positive message about private osteopathic practice. The study identified certain gaps between expectations and delivery of care, which can be used to improve the quality of care. The questionnaire is a resource for future research.

Encounters between medical specialists and patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms; influences of communication on patient outcomes and use of health care: a literature overview

Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) burden patients and health services due to large quantities of consultations and medical interventions. The aim of this study is to determine which elements of communication in non-psychiatric specialist MUPS care influence health outcomes. Systematic search in PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase. Data extraction comprising study design, patient characteristics, number of patients, communication strategies, outcome measures and results. Elements of doctor-patient communication were framed according to symptoms, health anxiety, satisfaction, daily functioning and use of health care. Eight included studies. Two studies described the effect of communication on patient outcome in physical symptoms, three studies on health anxiety and patient satisfaction and one study on daily functioning. Two studies contained research on use of health care. Qualitative synthesis of findings was conducted. Communication matters in non-psychiatric MUPS specialist care. Perceiving patients' expectations correctly enables specialists to influence patients' cognitions, to reduce patients' anxiety and improve patients' satisfaction. Patients report less symptoms and health anxiety when symptoms are properly explained. Positive interaction and feedback reduces use of health care and improves coping. Development of communication skills focused on MUPS patients should be part of postgraduate education for medical specialists.

The value of tailored communication for person-centred outcomes

RATIONALE

When entering a consulting room a person becomes a patient with double needs, that is, the need to feel known and understood and the need to know and understand, also referred to as affective and instrumental needs, respectively. The fulfilment of these needs highly depends on the communication skills of both doctor and patient, which help to bridge the inherent distance that exists between these two persons. There is ample evidence that this bridge becomes stronger the more the communication is tailored to the person behind the patient. Besides, such tailored communication may also prove to be effective for reaching favourable health outcomes.

METHODS

Descriptive study focusing on the value of tailored communication in promoting person-centred instrumental and affective health outcomes.

RESULTS

Research shows that tailored communication contributes to health outcomes known to be crucial for recovery and quality of life, that is, information recall, medication adherence, reassurance and need fulfilment.

CONCLUSION

There is empirical evidence for the value of tailored communication for person-centred outcomes. Communicating in a purposeful way while at the same time respecting patients' values and feelings should therefore become the standard in health care practice.