ArticlePloS one2021
Variance components of ratings of physician-patient communication: A generalizability theory analysis.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2022Trial
- Investigation of Intraoperative and Permanent Diagnostic Consistency in Glial Tumors Considering Rater and Technical Variability.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Acceptance and Usability of an Independent, Noncommercial Search Engine for Medical Information: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study and User Behavior Tracking Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Current status and solutions for the overuse of emergency CT in pediatric patients with abdominal pain.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Association between Caregiver-perceived Health Care Provider Cultural Sensitivity and Child Health Status in the National Survey of Children's Health: 2016-2020.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2024Article
- Determining the Development Strategy and Suited Adoption Paths for the Core Competence of Shared Decision-Making Tasks through the SAA-NRM Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Physician-patient agreement on physicians' communication skills and visit satisfaction in dermatology clinics: a one-with-many design.Health psychology report · 2022Article
- Divergence in Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in Pediatric Neuromuscular Scoliosis.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.