Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34111197›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Variance components of ratings of physician-patient communication: A generalizability theory analysis.

Nicole Röttele, Christian Schlett, Mirjam Körner, Erik Farin-Glattacker, Andrea C Schöpf-Lazzarino, Sebastian Voigt-Radloff, Markus A Wirtz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nicole RötteleInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9514-4960
Christian SchlettSection of Health Care Research and Rehabilitation Research, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Mirjam KörnerInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Erik Farin-GlattackerSection of Health Care Research and Rehabilitation Research, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Andrea C Schöpf-LazzarinoSection of Health Care Research and Rehabilitation Research, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Sebastian Voigt-RadloffInstitute for Evidence in Medicine (for Cochrane Germany Foundation), Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Markus A WirtzDepartment of Research Methods, Freiburg University of Education, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

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

methodsVariance 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.

resultsPhysician-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).

conclusionThe 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.

Indexed as

Quality of Health CareAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDecision Making, SharedFemaleGeneral PractitionersGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient Relations

Identifiers

PMID34111197
PMCPMC8191893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.