Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
Patients’ desire for involvement in management decision making.
Tables
Characteristic Deprivation Area P Value Low High Age in y, mean (SD) 50.50 (19.13) 51.45 (17.07) .60 Female, No. (%) 199 (66.3) 223 (62.6) .50 Married/living with partner, No. (%) 174 (58.6) 140 (39.8) <.001 Chronic conditions, No. (SD) 1.6 (1.4) 2.2 (1.9) <.001 ≥3 Chronic conditions, No. (%) 68 (22.4) 131 (36.8) <.001 Disabled by condition, No. (%) 102 (34.1) 182 (51.7) <.001 Good or better rating of health, No. (%) 185 (62.3) 142 (40.5) <.001 Anxiety score, mean (SD)a 10.82 (3.00) 11.59 (3.32) .003 Depression score, mean (SD)a 5.46 (5.45) 7.28 (6.59) <.001 ≥2 Problems to discuss, No. (%) 129 (42.9) 192 (54.1) .01 Desire for involvement in decision making, mean (SD)a 2.43 (0.61) 2.05 (0.65) <.001 Note: P values for differences between areas of deprivation are extracted from multi-level linear or logistic regression models that include fixed effects for age and sex and a random effect for GP level.
↵a Possible anxiety scores ranged from 6 to 24 (higher meaning worse anxiety), depression scores from 0 to 27 (higher meaning worse depression), and desire for involvement from 1 to 5 (where 1 means doctor alone should decide and 5 means patient alone should decide).
Variable Level of Deprivation Effect Size (Cohen’s d) P Value Low Mean (SD) High Mean (SD) GP verbal communication Patient-centered score total 1.42 (0.45) 1.27 (0.49) 0.319 .02 Component 1: Exploring both disease and illness experience 0.28 (0.13) 0.25 (0.13) 0.231 .08 Component 3: Understanding of the whole person 0.34 (0.38) 0.29 (0.38) 0.132 .22 Component 3: Finding common ground 0.81 (0.14) 0.72 (0.18) 0.559 <.001 GP nonverbal communication Smiles 0.38 (.65) 0.29 (0.58) 0.146 .20 Supportive facial expressions 1.78 (1.76) 1.27 (1.41) 0.357 .04 GP Head nods 6.05 (5.53) 4.05 (5.88) 0.350 .08 GP seconds looking at patient 21.51 (9.10) 17.94 (10.23) 0.369 .01 GP seconds looking at computer 6.18 (8.81) 9.63 (10.62) −0.353 .02 Consultation length and continuity Length of consultation (minutes) 9.24 (4.17) 9.17 (4.11) 0.017 .90 How well patient knows GP 3.48 (1.29) 4.04 (1.03) −0.085 .001 Empathy and enablement Patients’ score of GP empathy (CARE Measure) 4.50 (0.62) 4.34 (0.66) 0.250 .02 Patient enablement (PEI) 4.62 (3.29) 4.28 (3.45) 0.101 .20 CARE = consultation and relational empathy; GP = general practitioner; PEI = patient enablement instrument.
Note: P values for differences between areas of deprivation are extracted from multi-level linear regression models that include fixed effects for age and sex and a random effect for GP level.
Variable Level of Deprivation Effect Size (Cohen’s d) P Value Low Mean (SD) High Mean (SD) MYMOP symptom scorea Baseline 4.58 (1.50)
n = 2664.90 (1.56)
n = 310−0.209 .01 1 Month after baseline 2.79 (1.78)
n = 2213.48 (2.01)
n = 211−0.363 <.001 Change from baseline −1.76 (2.10)
n = 200−1.21 (2.13)
n = 188−0.260 .01 MYMOP well-being scorea Baseline 3.29 (1.63)
n = 2873.74 (1.78)
n = 340−0.264 .005 1 Month after baseline 2.78 (1.62)
n = 2253.53 (1.91)
n = 211−0.424 <.001 Change from baseline −0.49 (1.90)
n = 217−0.20 (2.09)
n = 203−0.145 .15 GP = general practitioner; MYMOP = Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile.
↵a MYMOP scores are generated by the patient on a 7 point scale from 0 (“as good as it could be”) to 6 (“as bad as it could be”). Thus high mean scores at baseline or follow-up reflect worse symptoms and well-being. Change scores are calculated as score at 1 month minus score at baseline.
Note: P values for differences between areas of deprivation are extracted from multi-level linear regression models that include fixed effects for age and sex and a random effect for GP level.
Covariate (n) Adjusted Parameter Estimate Value (95% CI) P Value Predictors of MYMOP symptom scores at 1 month Baseline MYMOP score (388) −0.71 (−0.83 to −0.59) <.001 High deprivation level (432) 0.16 (−0.24 to 0.56) .43 10-y Increase in age (430) −0.03 (−0.14 to .08) .61 Male sex (430) −0.08 (−0.49 to .31) .68 Multiple morbidity count (432) .13 (0.01 to 0.26) .03 Rating of health (423) .25 (0.02 to 0.47) .03 GP Visits in past year (401) .05 (0.01 to 0.08) .01 Duration of symptoms >4 wk (378) .53 (0.15 to 0.92) .006 PHQ-9 Baseline score (417) .05 (0.02 to 0.09) .003 Minutes spent with GP (423) .06 (0.02 to 0.11) .008 CARE Measure score (432) −0.40 (−0.70 to −0.10) .01 Predictors of MYMOP well-being scores at 1 month Baseline MYMOP score (420) −0.83 (−0.94 to −0.72) <.001 High deprivation (436) 0.24 (−0.11 to 0.59) .18 10-y Increase in age (434) −0.01 (−0.11 to 0.09) .80 Male sex (434) −0.18 (−0.53 to 0.17) .31 Rating of health (428) 0.38 (0.19 to 0.58) <.001 Duration of symptoms >4 wk (376) 0.42 (0.09 to 0.75) .01 GP visits in past year (406) 0.04 (0.01 to 0.07) .01 PHQ-9 baseline score (421) 0.06 (0.03 to 0.09) <.001 CARE measure score (436) −0.27 (−0.53 to −0.02) .04 CARE = consultation and relational empathy; GP = general practitioner; PHQ-9 = patient health questionnaire.
Note: For both outcome measures, the baseline MYMOP score, age, sex, and deprivation level were included in the adjusted regardless of significance. The full unadjusted and adjusted results are shown in the Supplemental Appendix, available at http://annfammed.org/content/14/2/117/suppl/DC1. A negative score in the parameter estimate (eg, baseline MYMOP scores) indicates a positive effect of that variable on outcomes at 1 month (because higher MYMOP scores represent worse symptoms and worse well-being). Depending on the nature of the covariate measured, the parameter estimate can be interpreted as the mean difference in the outcome variable associated with a 10-year increase in age, a 1-point increase in other continuous or ordinal predictors, or being in the specified subgroup (compared with the other) for binary predictors.
Supplemental Appendixes
PDF file
Files in this Data Supplement:
- Supplemental data: Appendixes - PDF file
The Article in Brief
General Practitioners' Empathy and Health Outcomes: A Prospective Observational Study of Consultations in Areas of High and Low Deprivation
Stewart W. Mercer , and colleagues
Background Primary care has the potential to help reduce health inequalities but there has been little research on patients' expectations and the characteristics of doctor visits in differing socioeconomic areas. This study compares general practitioner visits in areas of high and low deprivation in Scotland and analyzes factors that predict poorer or better outcomes in both low and high socioeconomic groups.
What This Study Found Compared with affluent areas, patients in deprived areas have higher rates of ill health, psychosocial problems, and multimorbidity; more problems to discuss within the same visit time yet less desire for shared decision making; perceive their GPs as less empathetic; and have worse outcomes at one month. Physicians in deprived areas display verbal and nonverbal behaviors that are less patient-centered. Perceived physician empathy is the only visit factor that predicts better outcomes in patient symptoms and wellbeing in both high- and low-deprivation groups.
Implications
- To improve health in deprived areas, the authors call for policies that address wider social determinants of health and improve consultation quality.
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Primary care transformation in Scotland: a qualitative evaluation of the views of patients
- Patients' views on primary care multidisciplinary teams in Scotland: a mixed-methods evaluation
- Enhancing empathy in GP consultations
- Patients experiences of GP consultations following the introduction of the new GP contract in Scotland: a cross-sectional survey
- Health inequalities, multimorbidity and primary care in Scotland
- Is Scotland's new GP contract addressing the inverse care law?
- A mixed-methods evaluation of patients views on primary care multi-disciplinary teams in Scotland
- Effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of behaviour change tools used by family doctors: a global systematic review
- Effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of behaviour change tools used by family doctors: a global systematic review
- Concordance with urgent referral guidelines in patients presenting with any of six 'alarm features of possible cancer: a retrospective cohort study using linked primary care records
- How do growth and nutrition explain social inequalities in lung function in children with cystic fibrosis? A longitudinal mediation analysis using interventional disparity effects with time-varying mediators and intermediate confounders
- Exploring GP work in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation: a secondary analysis
- Socioeconomic, racial and ethnic differences in patient experience of clinician empathy: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Primary medical care continuity and patient mortality: a systematic review
- Impact of newborn screening on outcomes and social inequalities in cystic fibrosis: a UK CF registry-based study
- The impact of general practitioners gender on process indicators in Hungarian primary healthcare: a nation-wide cross-sectional study
- Association Between Primary Care Practitioner Empathy and Risk of Cardiovascular Events and All-Cause Mortality Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Population-Based Prospective Cohort Study
- The Roles of Empathy, Attachment Style, and Burnout in Pharmacy Students Academic Satisfaction
- Professional resilience in GPs working in areas of socioeconomic deprivation: a qualitative study in primary care
- The inverse care law revisited: a continuing blot on the record of the National Health Service
- Factors associated with consultation rates in general practice in England, 2013-2014: a cross-sectional study
- Multimorbidity and Socioeconomic Deprivation in Primary Care Consultations
- Suffering and hope: Helen Lester Memorial Lecture 2016
- In This Issue: Confronting Constraints on Individual Behavior & Outcomes