Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24163151›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2014

Specialties differ in which aspects of doctor communication predict overall physician ratings.

Denise D Quigley, Marc N Elliott, Donna O Farley, Q Burkhart, Samuel A Skootsky, Ron D Hays

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Examining the Business Case for Patient Experience: A Systematic Review.Journal of healthcare management / American College of Healthcare Executives
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Denise D QuigleyRAND Corporation, 1776 Main St., Santa Monica, CA, 90401, USA.
Marc N Elliott
Donna O Farley
Q Burkhart
Samuel A Skootsky
Ron D Hays
RAND Corporation · USUCLA Health · US

Funding

The Center for Health Improvement of Minority ElderlyP30AG021684 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI CATHERINE A SARKISIAN · 2002 to 2026
$19.7M
TRAINING COREP20MD000182 · NIMHD · CHARLES R. DREW UNIVERSITY OF MED &SCI · PI CUNNINGHAM, WILLIAM EMERY, SHAPIRO, MARTIN F. · 2002 to 2016
$16.5M
Continuation of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems CAHPS IVU18HS016980 · AHRQ · RAND CORPORATION · PI HAYS, RONALD DALE · 2007 to 2016
$14.7M
AHRQ HHS U18 HS016980NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021684NIA NIH HHS P30-AG021684NIMHD NIH HHS P20 MD000182NIMHD NIH HHS P20MD000182
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective doctor communication is critical to positive doctor-patient relationships and predicts better health outcomes. Doctor communication is the strongest predictor of patient ratings of doctors, but the most important aspects of communication may vary by specialty.

objectiveTo determine the importance of five aspects of doctor communication to overall physician ratings by specialty.

designFor each of 28 specialties, we calculated partial correlations of five communication items with a 0-10 overall physician rating, controlling for patient demographics. PATIENTS: Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS®) 12-month Survey data collected 2005-2009 from 58,251 adults at a 534-physician medical group. MAIN MEASURES: CG-CAHPS includes a 0 ("Worst physician possible") to 10 ("Best physician possible") overall physician rating. Five doctor communication items assess how often the physician: explains things; listens carefully; gives easy-to-understand instructions; shows respect; and spends enough time. KEY

resultsPhysician showing respect was the most important aspect of communication for 23/28 specialties, with a mean partial correlation (0.27, ranging from 0.07 to 0.44 across specialties) that accounted for more than four times as much variance in the overall physician rating as any other communication item. Three of five communication items varied significantly across specialties in their associations with the overall rating (p < 0.05).

conclusionsAll patients valued respectful treatment; the importance of other aspects of communication varied significantly by specialty. Quality improvement efforts by all specialties should emphasize physicians showing respect to patients, and each specialty should also target other aspects of communication that matter most to their patients. The results have implications for improving provider quality improvement and incentive programs and the reporting of CAHPS data to patients. Specialists make important contributions to coordinated patient care, and thus customized approaches to measurement, reporting, and quality improvement efforts are important.

Indexed as

CommunicationPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesData CollectionForecastingHumansMaleMedicineMiddle AgedPhysiciansYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24163151
PMCPMC3930786
OpenAlexW2015065454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.