Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Review ArticleSystematic Reviews

Effect on Health-Related Outcomes of Interventions to Alter the Interaction Between Patients and Practitioners: A Systematic Review of Trials

Simon J. Griffin, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, Marijcke W. M. Veltman, Susan Gillard, Julie Grant and Moira Stewart
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2004, 2 (6) 595-608; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.142
Simon J. Griffin
MSc, DM
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ann-Louise Kinmonth
MSc, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marijcke W. M. Veltman
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan Gillard
MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julie Grant
BSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Moira Stewart
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Thoughts on taxonomy and theory
    Paul S Little
    Published on: 26 December 2004
  • Where do we go next...?
    John G.R. Howie
    Published on: 21 December 2004
  • Published on: (26 December 2004)
    Page navigation anchor for Thoughts on taxonomy and theory
    Thoughts on taxonomy and theory
    • Paul S Little, Southampton

    I am delighted to be invited to provide a commentary on this paper. This is a very valuable paper, and the authors are to be applauded not only for their exhaustive search of the literature, but in so doing for providing reflection and a very interesting framework for discussion. I don’t think there is a great deal to add to the careful and thoughtful approach the authors have taken. However, a number of relatively minor...

    Show More

    I am delighted to be invited to provide a commentary on this paper. This is a very valuable paper, and the authors are to be applauded not only for their exhaustive search of the literature, but in so doing for providing reflection and a very interesting framework for discussion. I don’t think there is a great deal to add to the careful and thoughtful approach the authors have taken. However, a number of relatively minor points occurred to me from this paper.

    1) Taxonomy of outcomes and which outcomes are important. The authors have provided valuable obervations in highlighting the paucity of ‘disease process’ outcomes. The authors also commendably highlight the importance for patients of their health experiences – and it is arguably these that are a central issue to address in the consultation, particularly in the context of the patient centred model? We certainly do have a long way to go – and the authors give cogent arguments for the next steps. However, I was very encouraged that across the range of studies, for patients experience of health outcomes nearly 80% of outcomes reported were positive, which makes it very likely that improving communication improves outcomes for patients. Secondly, the area of trials in communication makes for particular methodological problems in using ‘objective’ measures: I wonder how objective can ‘objective’ measures be in trials of patient communication given the difficulty of blinding patients and likely placebo and white coat effects on outcomes such as blood pressure, cholesterol and blood glucose? We also perhaps need to be aware that in making a dichotomy we remain alert to the interrelation between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’variables rather better: for example psychosocial variables may well predict mortality as well as biological variables (e.g. depression after MI). Perhaps we might describe the outcomes as biomedical (because ‘disease process’ assumes we understand the disease process whereas often we do not very fully?) vs health experience? 2) Valuing process. Related to the last point, the authors commendably highlight the ‘process outcomes’ and their overlap with satisfaction. There is a key overlap between satisfaction and process variables: patients’ perceptions of a whole range of aspects of communication – the extent to which patients felt listened to, their concerns taken on board, how their lives have been affected - are closely related to satisfaction with the consultation, and closely relate to intention to comply with treatment. As the authors comment these are valuable in their own right and perhaps should have equal status with ‘biomedical’ variables such as blood pressure? 3) The use of theory. I agree with the authors that we need to explicit about theory, and use theory to inform interventions but also try and understand and measure both process and outcome. However, we must perhaps remain sensitive to the limitations of theory. We have the problem about which theory to use – e.g. should the Theory of Planned Behaviour or the Self Regulatory Model be used when thinking about patient behaviour? This is not an argument for jettisoning theory, but for both designing studies which do not stay narrowly defined to one theory, and/or designing studies to test alternative theories. Also what constitutes a theory? - at the moment we have a framework of ideals and descriptors for the consultation in the patient centred model, but this is not the less valuable for not being a theory. Our theories and their measurement also only do so well - even the best psychological theories only explain a minority of the variance of behavioural outcomes. This means in addition to trying to use and improve theory, and the measurement of the theoretical constructs, we need to be aware of the potential limitations of theory, and value both empirical evidence and our aspirations for the consultation. 4) Negative outcomes. The authors highlight cost and show negative findings in slightly more studies than there are positive findings which is sobering. A recent study from our group also highlighted that empowering patients may lead to more unnecessary investigation1. This is not an argument for avoiding better communication nor the empowerment of patients, but that as supporters of the patient centred model we need to remain open to possible negative effects of improving communication, and how to avoid the pitfalls.

    These are all minor points and I would not wish to detract from a very useful, interesting and informative paper – thank you!

    Reference List

    1. Little P, Dorward M, Warner G, Moore M, Stephens K, Senior J et al. A Randomised controlled trial of effect of leaflets to empower patients in consultations in primary care. BMJ 2004;328:441-4.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (21 December 2004)
    Page navigation anchor for Where do we go next...?
    Where do we go next...?
    • John G.R. Howie, Edinburgh, UK

    It is a pleasure to be asked to comment on this predictably admirable review by Griffin and his team from Cambridge UK and London Ontario. Given the intellectual rigour displayed, it is tempting to say that there isn’t anything more to be said. But the paper ends with a challenge to advance the field (… of patient-centred care) ‘beyond a series of tantalising but disconnected and unconfirmed results’. The implication i...

    Show More

    It is a pleasure to be asked to comment on this predictably admirable review by Griffin and his team from Cambridge UK and London Ontario. Given the intellectual rigour displayed, it is tempting to say that there isn’t anything more to be said. But the paper ends with a challenge to advance the field (… of patient-centred care) ‘beyond a series of tantalising but disconnected and unconfirmed results’. The implication is that this should be through more and better theory-based clinical trials. Is the best or only way ahead?

    My first comment is that Griffin’s review starts with some 20,00 hits on key-words, but ends with only 35 ‘adequate’ trials from a sub-selection of 145. Of the 35, only a handful influenced health outcomes significantly. Maybe the clinical trial route is, for whatever reason, not - or not yet - a sufficiently productive way to go.

    My second observation is that this may because of the overwhelming influence of other confounding issues, and the complexity of their interactions. ‘Patient-centredness’ includes negotiating ‘patient preferences’, and demonstrating suitable clinical behaviours as well as increasing ‘patient participation’, and it has been documented that not all patients want to participate in decision-making either at any time or at all times. Finding suitable patients to randomise becomes so problematic that results become in danger of not being generalisable to the larger populations of interest to researchers, clinicians or patients. Perhaps the field is as yet too difficult to fit into a single theory, and there may still be a place for more use of descriptive work before returning to the trials’ arena.(1)

    My third comment is that perhaps other determinants of good inter- personal outcomes dwarf the variables presently being randomised. Candidates include the widely prevalent perverse incentive structures that militate against good inter-personal consulting practice, and the problem of diminished continuity of personal doctoring in modern multi- disciplinary primary care teams. It is highly possible that these influences will combine to defeat the balancing effects of randomisation in what are often fairly small numbers of patients available for study.

    It's a bit Kuhn-like I feel. Griffin and his team are absolutely right to emphasise the need for a good theory to work forward from. If we don’t yet have it, we first need to develop a model which is sophisticated enough to be meaningful, but simple enough to be useful.

    John Howie Professor emeritus, University of Edinburgh John.Howie2@btopenworld.com

    Reference: Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M. Quality, core values and the general practice consultation: issues of definition, management and delivery. Family Practice 2004;21:458-468.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 2 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 2 (6)
Vol. 2, Issue 6
1 Nov 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • [In Brief]
  • [Annual Indexes, 2004]
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effect on Health-Related Outcomes of Interventions to Alter the Interaction Between Patients and Practitioners: A Systematic Review of Trials
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 8 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Effect on Health-Related Outcomes of Interventions to Alter the Interaction Between Patients and Practitioners: A Systematic Review of Trials
Simon J. Griffin, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, Marijcke W. M. Veltman, Susan Gillard, Julie Grant, Moira Stewart
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2004, 2 (6) 595-608; DOI: 10.1370/afm.142

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Effect on Health-Related Outcomes of Interventions to Alter the Interaction Between Patients and Practitioners: A Systematic Review of Trials
Simon J. Griffin, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, Marijcke W. M. Veltman, Susan Gillard, Julie Grant, Moira Stewart
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2004, 2 (6) 595-608; DOI: 10.1370/afm.142
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • How to Develop Patient Centred Consulting during Workplace Learning in Postgraduate Medical Education? Opening the Black Box Using the Framework of Four Narrative Profiles for Consultation Performance
  • Feasibility trial of a new digital training package to enhance primary care practitioners communication of clinical empathy and realistic optimism
  • Talking in primary care (TIP): protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial in UK primary care to assess clinical and cost-effectiveness of communication skills e-learning for practitioners on patients musculoskeletal pain and enablement
  • What is in the toolkit (and what are the tools)? How to approach the study of doctor-patient communication
  • Training physicians in providing complex information to patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial
  • Tool to improve patient-provider interactions in adult primary care: Randomized controlled pilot study
  • Primary care service utilisation and outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal cohort analysis
  • Placebos in chronic pain: evidence, theory, ethics, and use in clinical practice
  • Heterogeneity in Trust of Cancer Information among Hispanic Adults in the United States: An Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey
  • Physicians' Response to Patients' Quality-of-Life Goals
  • Identifying patient concerns during consultations in tertiary burns services: development of the Adult Burns Patient Concerns Inventory
  • Balancing the Hype with Reality: What Do Patients with Advanced Melanoma Consider When Making the Decision to Have Immunotherapy?
  • 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
  • Patients views on interactions with practitioners for type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal qualitative study in primary care over 10 years
  • Patient-Centred Innovations for Persons with Multimorbidity: funded evaluation protocol
  • Impact of Gaps in Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Measures on Marginalized Populations
  • What are the decision-making preferences of patients in vascular surgery? A mixed-methods study
  • Encouraging Patient-Centered Care by Including Quality-of-Life Questions on Pre-Encounter Forms
  • Assessing patient-centred care through direct observation of clinical encounters
  • Patient-centred care, health behaviours and cardiovascular risk factor levels in people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes: 5-year follow-up of the ADDITION-Plus trial cohort
  • Randomised controlled trial of a brief intervention targeting predominantly non-verbal communication in general practice consultations
  • Verbal and non-verbal behaviour and patient perception of communication in primary care: an observational study
  • Evaluating Client Discovery Interviews at a Financial Advisory Firm
  • Exploring the effect of space and place on response to exercise therapy for knee and hip pain--a protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial: the CONEX trial
  • Shared Decision Making for Treatment of Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities
  • Protocol for the ProCare Trial: a phase II randomised controlled trial of shared care for follow-up of men with prostate cancer
  • Intervention to Enhance Communication About Newly Prescribed Medications
  • The Emerging Case for Shared Decision Making in Orthopaedics
  • Early and continuing education: a prescription for achieving patient-centred care
  • The Effects of Patient-Provider Communication on 3-Month Recovery from Acute Low Back Pain
  • Physician Satisfaction with Chronic Care Processes: A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Guided Care
  • Learning from Alma Ata: The Medical Home and Comprehensive Primary Health Care
  • Patients' ideas, concerns, and expectations (ICE) in general practice: impact on prescribing
  • Interpreting research findings to guide treatment in practice
  • Comprehending Care in a Medical Home: A Usual Source of Care and Patient Perceptions about Healthcare Communication
  • How about a career in academic general practice?
  • Improving Communication Between Doctors and Breast Cancer Patients
  • Exploring and Validating Patient Concerns: Relation to Prescribing for Depression
  • Involve the patient and pass the MRCGP: investigating shared decision making in a consulting skills examination using a validated instrument
  • Communication between South Asian patients and GPs: comparative study using the Roter Interactional Analysis System
  • Reflections on the doctor-patient relationship: from evidence and experience
  • Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD): Reliability and Validity
  • In This Issue: New Model Finances, Systematic Reviews, Patients and Health Care
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing Among Older Persons: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
  • Accuracy of Signs and Symptoms for the Diagnosis of Acute Rhinosinusitis and Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis
  • Employment Interventions in Health Settings: A Systematic Review and Synthesis
Show more Systematic Reviews

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Professional practice
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Relationship
  • Other topics:
    • Communication / decision making

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine