Skip to main content

Main menu

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

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

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

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Patients’ Commitment to Their Primary Physician and Why It Matters

Leonard L. Berry, Janet Turner Parish, Ramkumar Janakiraman, Lee Ogburn-Russell, Glen R. Couchman, William L. Rayburn and Jedidiah Grisel
The Annals of Family Medicine January 2008, 6 (1) 6-13; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.757
Leonard L. Berry
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janet Turner Parish
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ramkumar Janakiraman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lee Ogburn-Russell
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Glen R. Couchman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William L. Rayburn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jedidiah Grisel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

PURPOSE The patient-physician relationship is the cornerstone of health care service delivery. The objectives of this study were to assess the contribution of relationship commitment along with trust to patient-physician relationships and to evaluate the association of commitment and trust with adherence to medical advice and healthy eating behaviors.

METHODS To test the proposed model, we developed a questionnaire that included both existing scales and a scale constructed specifically for the study; the questions addressed trust, commitment, adherence to physicians’ medical recommendations, and healthy eating behavior. The questionnaire was given to adult patients in the waiting rooms of 4 large clinics in central Texas.

RESULTS A total of 1,008 patients returned questionnaires; 869 patients’ questionnaires were complete and used in the analysis. A 3-stage least squares analysis that tested a system of 4 equations which included relationship commitment yielded a systemwide R2 of 0.71 that was 0.09 higher than a system of equations excluding relationship commitment. Trust and commitment were positively associated with adherence (P <.001 and P = .02, respectively). We also found positive relationships between adherence and commitment and between trust and commitment (P <.001 for each). Adherence and commitment were both associated with healthy eating behavior as well (P <.001 for each).

CONCLUSIONS Patients’ trust in their physician and commitment to the relationship offer a more complete understanding of the patient-physician relationship. In addition, trust and commitment favorably influence patients’ health behaviors.

  • Physician-patient relations
  • relationship commitment
  • trust
  • physician behavior
  • patient adherence
  • patient compliance
  • healthy eating behavior
  • primary care

INTRODUCTION

The intimacy, importance, complexity, and variability of medical services cause many patients to desire continuity with 1 physician as a primary source of care. Safran1 has summarized a series of studies in the United States starting in the 1970s indicating that most adults have a physician they consider to be their primary physician. The percentages reported range from 88% in 1975 to 77% in 1996.2–5 In 2005, 76% of 35,383 patients studied reported that they saw the same clinician always or most of the time.6 This figure is similar to the 68.3% of 16,435 patients that a group of primary care physicians identified from their patient panel as being their patients.7 A study of family practice patients in the United States and United Kingdom found that 79% of patients rated seeing the same physician for a health problem as important or very important.8 Fan et al6 found that those patients who reported seeing the same physician always or most of the time had patient satisfaction scores that were significantly higher than those of their counterparts who did not see the same physician. Clearly, most patients value continuity of care. Learning more about the patient-physician relationship motivated our study. We wanted to investigate whether strength of the patient-physician relationship was associated with positive patient attitudes and behaviors (ie, adherence to medical recommendations and healthy eating).

In general, patients remain in relationships with clinicians either by choice or because they perceive no alternative. The former can be termed dedication-based relationships; the latter, constraint-based relationships.9 For various reasons, including insurance plan design, unavailability of substitute clinicians, or patient passivity, patients may remain with physicians even when they do not want to; however, one should expect the patient-physician relationship to differ qualitatively based on why the patient maintains it. Accordingly, in this study, we distinguish between duration of care and patient commitment to the relationship. Relationship commitment is the degree to which a relationship is valued; with commitment, the patient wants the relationship to continue and invests energy toward its continuance.

Trust is considered a key component of relationships between patients and physicians.10–12 Trust exists when patients perceive their physician to be sincere, credible, honest, and benevolent.13,14 Trust can lead to important outcomes. For example, patients’ trust in their physician has been shown to predict patient satisfaction8 and adherence to a medical regimen.15 A study of hypertensive patients’ adherence to medication recommendations found that patients with the lowest levels of adherence do not trust their physicians.16 Yet, other research suggests that, depending on the method of analysis, there may be no “physician effect” (which includes trust) on patient outcomes.17

We explored the patient-physician relationship by including relationship commitment in our evaluation and specifically measuring its effects. We believe that trust strengthens relationship commitment, and measuring both constructs together could improve our understanding of patient-physician relationships. Morgan and Hunt18 hold that both trust and commitment are key to all commercial relationships. Such a conclusion should be no less true for the delivery of primary care health services. We therefore designed our study to explore the association of trust and relationship commitment with 2 desirable patient outcomes: medical adherence and healthy eating. We also wanted to learn more about the antecedents of strong patient-physician relationships, specifically, the antecedents of trust.

Primary care physicians play a key role in encouraging adherence to prescribed medical regimens and healthy lifestyles.15,19–23 Adherence is a salient issue. A meta-analysis of 63 studies assessing patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes concluded that, on average, 26% more patients had a good outcome through adherence vs nonadherence.24 Yet, research shows that patient adherence in taking prescribed medications is suboptimal, with little relation to social and demographic characteristics.23–27 A systematic review of published randomized controlled trials of interventions to increase patients’ adherence to prescribed medications showed that even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence and treatment outcomes.28 We conceptualize adherence as an attitude toward following physician suggestions; therefore, in our model, adherence is a mediator between trust and healthy eating behaviors.

We selected healthy eating behaviors for study because of the alarming rise of obesity in America and obesity’s role as a well-known risk factor for multiple diseases, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, cardiovascular disease, stroke, certain types of cancer, and dementia.29–33 Any association between strength of the patient-physician relationship and patients’ healthy eating behavior would merit further attention and research.

The model that we tested (Figure 1⇓) posits that patients’ trust of their physician is associated with 3 composite physician behaviors: developing knowledge of the patient, demonstrating medical competence, and supporting patient autonomy.17,34,35 Knowledge of the patient refers to patients’ perceptions that their physician knows their medical history and knows them as a person. Competence is defined as the degree to which patients perceive that physicians have the skills and knowledge required to provide for their health care needs.36 Patient autonomy refers to patients’ perceptions that their physician encourages questions and listens to their requests.37 We postulated that patients’ commitment to their relationship with their physician is linked to their trust perceptions. We also posited that both trust and commitment influence adherence to medical recommendations. We further hypothesized that commitment and adherence are associated and both contribute to healthy eating behaviors. Patients’ trust in and commitment to their primary physician are thus instrumental in improving adherence and diet.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Conceptual diagram of proposed model relationships.

METHODS

Questionnaire

To test the proposed model, we developed a questionnaire that included existing scales that were adapted for this study and a new scale for competence. The scales, as well as their sources, means, reliabilities, and items are displayed in Table 1⇓. We measured attitudinal commitment (eg, “The relationship … is important to me”). We pretested and refined our questionnaire in several phases. First, we convened a group of 10 adults to complete the questionnaire and then provide feedback on instructions or questions that were problematic. We then mailed a revised questionnaire with a cover letter on a test basis to a random sample of 750 adults living in a 5-county area in the central United States. We received 93 completed questionnaires and further revised the questionnaire based on the results of exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Measures, Sources, Means, Reliabilities (α), and Items

Study Setting, Data Collection, and Respondents

The final self-administered questionnaire and cover letter were distributed and collected by a group of trained research assistants in family practice patient waiting rooms in 4 clinics in central Texas. Waiting room samples are often used in studies of this type, as they provide access to the appropriate population.40–42 The clinics are staffed by family physicians employed by a large multispecialty group practice that is academically affiliated with a university and a medical school. These are continuity clinics that provide routine chronic care and wellness care. Approximately 50% of the appointments are for same-day acute medical problems. The 4 clinics were chosen because they serve a demographically diverse patient population and are relatively large, providing care to between 2,400 and 8,200 patients per month with 6 to 20 primary care physicians per clinic. In November 2005 data were collected for 8 full days at each of the clinics covering each weekday. No data were collected during night or weekend hours. All adult patients entering the waiting room were approached.

Statistical Analysis

Using the SAS statistical analysis software (SAS v9.1, SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina), we selected a system of 4 equations to study the proposed relationships among the variables of interest (Figure 2⇓). In this system, the variables adherence, commitment, and trust that appear as regressors in equations (1), (2), and (3) also appear as dependent variables in equations (2), (3), and (4), respectively. It is well established that estimating the above system of equations by ordinary least squares (OLS) analysis will yield inconsistent estimates43; furthermore, the errors across equations (1) through (4) may be correlated. As a result, consistent with literature in economics and marketing,44,45 we used a 3-stage least squares (3SLS) procedure that accounts for the correlation across the error terms and thus yields consistent estimates. We conducted this analysis both with and without the relationship commitment variable. Finally, while analyzing the effect of the relationship variables on healthy eating behavior, we accounted for other control variables, such as the presence of a chronic illness and patient demographics (Figure 2⇓).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

System of 4 equations used to assess relationships among the variables of interest.

RESULTS

Respondents

Approximately 75% of patients approached agreed to participate in the study. Questionnaires were collected from 1,008 patients; 869 patients’ questionnaires were deemed complete and usable for the analysis. The majority of our respondents were female (66%), college educated (72% had at least some college), and white (81%), and had incomes between $25,000 and $75,000 (74%). The average age of the respondents was 50 years.

Patient-Physician Relationship

Table 2⇓ displays the results of the 3SLS estimation for the system of equations (1) through (4). The proposed system of equations fits the data well, with the systemwide R2 for the proposed set of equations equal to 0.71. When we repeated the 3SLS without the relationship commitment variable, the systemwide R2 decreased to 0.62, empirically demonstrating the value of relationship commitment in understanding the patient-physician relationship.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Estimates Derived With the System of Equations

Influence of Trust and Commitment

Specific results from our proposed model showed that all of the significant coefficients had the expected signs (Table 2⇑). As expected, knowledge of the patient, competence, and autonomy support were significantly related to patient trust (P <.001 for all 3 variables). Both trust (P <.001) and commitment (P = .02) were positively associated with adherence. The results also supported the hypotheses of positive relationships between adherence and commitment (P <.001) and between trust and commitment (P <.001). In other words, the greater patients’ levels of adherence and trust, the greater their level of commitment to the physician. Additionally, the results supported our model by indicating that adherence (P <.001) and commitment (P <.001) are associated with healthy eating behavior.

Influence of Control Variables

With respect to the control variables, patients who were older (P <.001), had higher incomes (P = .047), and were more educated (P = .01) had healthier eating patterns (Table 2⇑). All other factors remaining the same, female patients had healthier eating behavior than their male counterparts (P = .001). Higher education and income as well as female sex have been linked to healthier eating in previous research, with education being the most influential factor.46 We also controlled for chronic illness and found that it had no significant effect on eating behavior.

DISCUSSION

Most patients want a strong relationship with a primary doctor.1,21,47,48 The vulnerability and dependency inherent in being ill and at a knowledge disadvantage, the necessity of revealing personal information, and the sheer importance of the service make finding—and keeping—a “good doctor” a consumer priority. Literature converges on patients’ valuing relationships with physicians who evoke trust and convey respect. Physicians evoke patients’ trust and convey respect by listening carefully to their patients, developing whole-person knowledge about them, explaining issues clearly and forthrightly, treating patients as partners in their own care, showing compassion, and being thorough.1,8,12,15,47,49–56

We designed our study to specifically include relationship commitment because its measurement should yield a richer understanding of the patient-physician relationship. Although trust is an essential component of relationship commitment, it is not its equivalent. Patients may trust their physicians but not necessarily feel strongly about continuing their relationship with them. Our measure of relationship commitment assesses the degree to which patients value the relationship and want it to continue.

Results for our sample show a significant association between the patient-physician relationship and patients’ adherence to their physician’s medical recommendations and healthy eating behavior. Strength of the relationship matters. Patients’ trust in the physician and commitment to the relationship offer a more complete understanding of the relationship. The patient-physician relationship is built not only from physicians’ medical competence, but also from their interpersonal behavioral competence. If a “good doctor” is one who positively influences health-related behaviors, then our findings support the conclusion that good doctors are both interpersonally proficient and technically proficient, not just the latter. They know their patients and work with them in a spirit of partnership (conceptualized as autonomy in this study). Both knowledge of patients and support of their autonomy are consistent with conveying respect.

In a joint presentation at the 2006 Institute of Healthcare Improvement National Quality Forum, primary care physicians Douglas Eby, MD, and Charles Kilo, MD, argued that the real work of advancing health is physicians affecting the choices made by individuals with regard to eating, drinking, smoking, exercising, managing stress, parenting, taking prescribed medications, and other behaviors. Their position is supported by data-based estimates on the relative impact of 5 domains on US deaths: genetics, social circumstances, environmental conditions, behavioral choices, and medical care.57 While recognizing the interconnectedness of the categories, the researchers concluded that approximately 40% of deaths are caused by modifiable behavior patterns, such as poor diet, physical inactivity, substance abuse, and poor coping strategies for stress.

What is most intriguing about our findings is the influence that primary care physicians with strong patient relationships appear to have on their patients’ behavior. Other research also suggests the positive influence that good physicians can have on patients’ health-related behaviors. In another study, primary care visits characterized by higher levels of physician-patient concordance (as reported by physicians) were associated with one-third higher medication compliance.58 The Diabetes Prevention Program, a randomized controlled trial, found intensive lifestyle modification to be more effective than metformin for reducing the incidence of type 2 diabetes.59 Patient adherence to lifestyle recommendations (including healthy eating) was a central feature for successful interventions, and adherence was optimized when physicians developed a coaching approach to encourage patients to make positive choices and develop self-sufficiency and assist them in identifying and overcoming barriers.60 These interventions are most effective when physicians are part of a larger team of allied health professionals.

The conceptualization and measurement of relationship commitment in the present study may help explain the nature of physicians’ influence on their patients’ behavior. Strong relationships require that both parties desire to maintain them. Relationships inevitably suffer and frequently end when one party does not reciprocate the investment of the other. One possible interpretation of our findings is of patients investing in the quality of a valued relationship with their physician through positive, healthy behavior.

To invest in stronger patient relationships while managing the pressures of time, physicians need to consider and develop new approaches to educate patients. Needed are methods or processes that make counseling and education more available to patients and more practical for physicians to provide from both time and financial standpoints. For example, physicians could schedule group educational appointments, create physician and nonphysician teams, and seek more progressive health insurance plans that reimburse preventive and education services.61,62

We can draw conclusions from this study about our sample—but not about a broader group of patients because of sampling limitations. Our data come from patients in 4 clinics of a single regional health care organization. A larger, geographically dispersed sample could reveal important regional differences. Our respondents were largely white and relatively well educated; a more demographically diverse sample could reveal salient differences, as could a sample of patients less established with primary care physicians. Also, we studied patients’ relationship with their primary care physicians and cannot claim that our findings apply to other types of physicians; moreover, patients’ relationships with clinicians other than their primary care physicians may have played a role in the outcomes we report. Waiting room samples offer the advantages of access to respondents and good participation rates, but have the disadvantage of favoring patients who make frequent appointments. Only patients visiting the clinics during the 8-day data collection period had an opportunity to participate in the study.

Our study’s design creates the possibility of self-report bias. In particular, the adherence and healthy eating behavior constructs may be subject to socially desirable responses, leading participants to underestimate or overestimate their responses. Even so, literature suggests that self-reported measures are useful for developing hypotheses and in initial investigations.63,64 Some studies suggest that the response bias that occurs from self-reported measures is not a grave concern when this bias does not vary systematically.65,66 Given the focus of this research, we do not believe that any self-reporting bias that exists will affect the substantive findings or vary systematically, but we recognize it as a potential threat to validity. The addition of objective measures, however, especially of the adherence and healthy eating behavior constructs, could help solidify the validity of findings. A social desirability bias scale could also be incorporated in future research. As an example, the Crowne-Marlowe Scale67 helps researchers establish discriminant validity by comparing inter-correlations between the social desirability scale and other scales of interest.68

Additional research is needed to both replicate and extend our findings. Future study could include other patient behaviors, the application of the model to different types of physicians, and possible changes among associations of model variables over time. Also, our study focuses on the patient-physician relationship from the patient’s perspective. Research that simultaneously assesses patient and physician commitment to the relationship could be useful.

The patient-physician relationship is central to the delivery of high-quality health care. Relationship commitment is a construct that merits further research. Continued research on what contributes to and detracts from strong patient-physician relationships should help clinicians craft improved practice strategies and lead to healthier patients.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of interest: none reported

  • Funding support: This work was supported by Scott & White, Texas A&M University.

  • Received for publication January 26, 2007.
  • Revision received July 13, 2007.
  • Accepted for publication July 31, 2007.
  • © 2008 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Safran DG. Defining the future of primary care: what can we learn from patients? Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(3):248–255.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Aiken LH, Lewis CE, Craig J, Mendenhall RC, Blendon RJ, Rogers DE. The contribution of specialists to the delivery of primary care. N Engl J Med. 1979;300(24):1363–1370.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, and Center for Cost and Financing Studies. 1987 NMES Household Survey and Health Insurance Plans Survey Data [CD-ROM]. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1998. AHCPR publication 98-DP02.
  4. Davis JA, Smith TW. The NORC General Social Survey: A User’s Guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1992.
  5. ↵
    Weinick RM, Drilea SK. Usual sources of health care and barriers to care, 1996. Stat Bull Metrop Insur Co. 1998;79(1):11–17.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    Fan VS, Burman M, McDonell MB, Fihn SD. Continuity of care and other determinants of patient satisfaction with primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(3):226–233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Atlas SJ, Chang Y, Lasko TA, Chueh HC, Grant RW, Barry MJ. Is this “my” patient? Development and validation of a predictive model to link patients to primary care providers. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(9):973–978.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Baker R, Mainous AG III, Gray DP, Love MM. Exploration of the relationship between continuity, trust in regular doctors and patient satisfaction with consultations with family doctors. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2003;21(1):27–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Bendapudi N, Berry LL. Customers’ motivations for maintaining relationships with service providers. J Retailing. 1997;73(1):15–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    Mechanic D, Schlesinger M. The impact of managed care on patients’ trust in medical care and their physicians. JAMA. 1996;275(21):1693–1697.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. Leopold N, Cooper J, Clancy C. Sustained partnership in primary care. J Fam Pract. 1996;42(2):129–137.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    Thom DH, Campbell B. Patient-physician trust: an exploratory study. J Fam Pract. 1997;44(2):169–176.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    Doney PM, Cannon JP. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. J Marketing. 1997;61(2):35–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    Fugelli P. Trust—in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51(468): 575–579.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    Safran DG, Taira DA, Rogers WH, Kosinski M, Ware JE, Tarlov AR. Linking primary care performance to outcomes of care. J Fam Pract. 1998;47(468):213–220.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    Hopfield J, Linden RM, Tevelow BJ. Getting patients to take their medicine: improving adherence to drug regimens can save lives and reduce health care costs. McKinsey Q. December 2006. http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_page.aspx?ar=1872&l2=12&l3=62&srid=17&gp=0#foot1. Accessed December 18, 2006.
  17. ↵
    Franks P, Fiscella K, Shields CG, et al. Are patients’ ratings of their physicians related to health outcomes? Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3): 229–234.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Morgan RM, Hunt SD. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J Marketing. 1994;58(3):20–38.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    Demmer C. Relationship with health care provider and adherence to HIV medications. Psychol Rep. 2003;93(2):494–496.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. DiMatteo MR, Sherbourne CD, Hays RD, et al. Physicians’ characteristics influence patients’ adherence to medical treatment: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Health Psychol. 1993;12(2):93–102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Love MM, Mainous AG III, Talbert JC, Hager GL. Continuity of care and the physician-patient relationship: the importance of continuity for adult patients with asthma. J Fam Pract. 2000;49(11):998–1004.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. Donaldson MS, Yordy KD, Lohr K, Vanselow NA, eds. Primary Care: America’s Health in a New Era. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996.
  23. ↵
    Jayanti RK, Burns AC. The antecedents of preventive health care behavior: an empirical study. J Acad Market Sci. 1998;26(1):6–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    DiMatteo MR, Giordani PJ, Lepper HS, Croghan TW. Patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2002;40(9):794–811.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. Haynes RB. Determinants of compliance: the disease and the mechanisms of treatment. In: Haynes RB, Taylor DW, Sackett DL, eds. Compliance in Health Care. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1979:49–62.
  26. Miller NH, Hill M, Kottke T, Ockene IS. The multilevel compliance challenge: recommendations for a call to action. A statement for healthcare professionals. Circulation. 1997;95(4):1085–1090.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    Burke LE, Dunbar-Jacob JM, Hill MN. Compliance with cardiovascular disease prevention strategies: a review of the research. Ann Behav Med. 1997;19(3):239–263.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    McDonald HP, Garg AX, Haynes BR. Interventions to enhance patient adherence to medication prescriptions: scientific review. JAMA. 2002;288(22):2868–2879.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Olshansky SJ, Passaro DJ, Hershow RC, et al. A potential decline in life expectancy in the United States in the 21st century. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(11):1138–1145.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. Manson JE, Skerrett PJ, Greenland P, VanItallie TB. The escalating pandemics of obesity and sedentary lifestyles. A call to action for clinicians. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(3):249–258.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. Valdes AM, Andrew T, Gardner JP, et al. Obesity, cigarette smoking, and telomere length in women. Lancet. 2005;366(9486):662–664.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. Whitmer RA, Gunderson EP, Barrett-Connor E, Quesenberry CP Jr, Yaffe K. Obesity in middle age and future risk of dementia: a 27 year longitudinal population based study. BMJ. 2005;330(7504):1360.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    Kaplan JP, Livermon CT, Krook VL, eds. Preventing Childhood Obesity: Health in the Balance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.
  34. ↵
    Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ. 1995;152(9):1423–1433.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  35. ↵
    Larson EB, Yao X. Clinical empathy as emotional labor in the patient-physician relationship. JAMA. 2005;293(9):1100–1106.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    Coulter KS, Coulter RA. Determinants of trust in a service provider: the moderating role of length of relationship. J Serv Mark. 2002;16(1):35–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    Ware JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR, Davies AR. Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann. 1984;6:247–263.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. Safran DG, Kosinski M, Tarlov AR, et al. The Primary Care Assessment Survey: tests of data quality and measurement performance. Med Care. 1998;36(5):728–739.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. Glasgow RE, Ory MG, Klesges LM, Cifuentes M, Fernald DH, Green LA. Practical and relevant self-report measures of patient health behaviors for primary care research. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(1):73–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    Kahn BE, Luce MF. Understanding high-stakes consumer decisions: mammography adherence following false-alarm test results. Marketing Sci. 2003;22(Summer):393–410.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. Little P, Everitt H, Williamson I, et al. Preferences of patients for patient centred approach to consultation in primary care: observational study. BMJ. 2001;322(7284):468–472.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    Potter MB, Vu JD, Croughan-Minihane M. Weight management: what patients want from their primary care physicians. J Fam Pract. 2001;50(6):513–518.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. ↵
    Judge G, Hill R, Lee T. The Theory and Practice of Ecometrics. New York, NY: Wiley; 1985.
  44. ↵
    Zellner A, Theil H. Three stage least squares: simultaneous estimation of simultaneous equations. Econometrica. 1962;30(1):54–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. ↵
    Bayus BL, Putsis WP Jr. Product proliferation: an empirical analysis of product line determinants and market outcomes. Marketing Sci. 1999;18(2):137–153.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. ↵
    Popkin BM, Zizza C, Siega Riz AM. Who is leading the change? U.S. dietary quality comparison between 1965 and 1996. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25(1):1–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  47. ↵
    Mainous AG III, Baker R, Love MM, et al. Continuity of care and trust in one’s physician: evidence from primary care in the United States and the United Kingdom. Fam Med. 2001;33(1):22–27.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. ↵
    Nutting PA, Goodwin MA, Flocke SA, et al. Continuity of primary care: to whom does it matter and when? Ann Fam Med. 2003;1(1): 149–155.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    Tarrant C, Stokes T, Baker R. Factors associated with patients’ trust in their general practitioner: a cross-sectional survey. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53(495):798–800.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. Emanuel EJ, Dubler NN. Preserving the physician-patient relationship in the era of managed care. JAMA. 1995;273(4):323–329.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. Martin JC, Avant RF, Bowman MA, et al. The Future of Family Medicine: a collaborative project of the family medicine community. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(Suppl 1):S3–S32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. Wright EB, Holcombe C, Salmon P. Doctors’ communication of trust, care, and respect in breast cancer: qualitative study. BMJ. 2004;328(7444):864.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. Bright B. Health poll: patients on doctors. Wall Street Journal. October 11, 2004:2.
  54. Saultz JW, Albedaiwi W. Interpersonal continuity of care and patient satisfaction: a critical review. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(5):445–451.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. Borrell-Carrio F, Suchman AL, Epstein RM. The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiry. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(6):576–582.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    Bendapudi NM, Berry LL, Frey KA, Parish JT, Rayburn WL. Patients’ perspectives of ideal physician behaviors. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(3):338–344.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    McGinnis MJ, Williams-Russo P, Knickman JR. The case for more active policy attention to health promotion. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002;21(2):78–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    Kerse N, Buetow S, Mainous AG III, Young G, Coster G, Arroll B. Physician/patient relationship and medication compliance: a primary care investigation. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(5):455–461.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(6):393–403.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    Koenigsberg MR, Bartlett D, Cramer JS. Facilitating treatment adherence with lifestyle changes in diabetes. Am Fam Physician. 2004;69(2):309–316.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. ↵
    Berry LL, Seiders K, Wilder SS. Innovations in access to care: a patient-centered approach. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(7):568–574.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    Berry LL, Mirabito AM, Williams S, Davidoff F. A physicians’ agenda for partnering with employers and insurers: fresh ideas. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(12):1592–1602.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    Spector PE. Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of a controversial method. J Organ Behav. 1994;15:385–392.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. ↵
    Shanafelt TD, Bradley KA, Wipf JE, Back AL. Burnout and self-reported patient care in an internal medicine residency program. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(5):358–367.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    Mittal V, Kamakura WA. Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior: investigating the moderating effects of customer characteristics. J Marketing Res. 2001;38(1):131–142.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. ↵
    Griffin A, Hauser JR. Patterns of communication among marketing, engineering and manufacturing—a comparison between two new product teams. Manage Sci. 1992;38(3):360–373.
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    Crowne DP, Marlowe D. The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence. New York, NY: Wiley; 1964.
  68. ↵
    King MF, Bruner GC. Social desirability bias: a neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychol Mark. 2000;17(2):79–103.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 6 (1)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 6 (1)
Vol. 6, Issue 1
1 Jan 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
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.
Patients’ Commitment to Their Primary Physician and Why It Matters
(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.
1 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Patients’ Commitment to Their Primary Physician and Why It Matters
Leonard L. Berry, Janet Turner Parish, Ramkumar Janakiraman, Lee Ogburn-Russell, Glen R. Couchman, William L. Rayburn, Jedidiah Grisel
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2008, 6 (1) 6-13; DOI: 10.1370/afm.757

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Patients’ Commitment to Their Primary Physician and Why It Matters
Leonard L. Berry, Janet Turner Parish, Ramkumar Janakiraman, Lee Ogburn-Russell, Glen R. Couchman, William L. Rayburn, Jedidiah Grisel
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2008, 6 (1) 6-13; DOI: 10.1370/afm.757
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Discrimination and Medical Mistrust in a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Sample of California Adults
  • Exploring the psychometric properties of the Working Alliance Inventory in general practice: a cross-sectional study
  • Continuity of care as a predictor of ongoing frequent attendance in primary care: a retrospective cohort study
  • Patient Commitment and Its Relationship to A1C
  • Patients perceptions of access to primary care: Analysis of the QUALICOPC Patient Experiences Survey
  • Association between interpersonal continuity of care and medication adherence in type 2 diabetes: an observational cohort study
  • Provider Practice Characteristics That Promote Interpersonal Continuity
  • Look Who's (Not) Talking: Diabetic patients' willingness to discuss self-care with physicians
  • Implications of Reassigning Patients for the Medical Home: A Case Study
  • The Medical Home: Growing Evidence to Support a New Approach to Primary Care
  • Journey to the Future of Family Medicine
  • In This Issue: Mental Health and Care Management, Health Behavior Change, and Reflection in Primary Care
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Patient Satisfaction With Medical Care for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pain Research Registry Study
  • Disparities in Shared Decision-Making Research and Practice: The Case for Black American Patients
  • Health TAPESTRY Ontario: A Multi-Site Randomized Controlled Trial Testing Implementation and Reproducibility
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Relationship
  • Other topics:
    • Patient perspectives

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Multimedia
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Multimedia
  • Supplements
  • Online First
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

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

© 2023 Annals of Family Medicine