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
Research ArticleMethodology

Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale: Development and Validation

Matthew J. Ridd, Glyn Lewis, Tim J. Peters and Chris Salisbury
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2011, 9 (6) 538-545; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1322
Matthew J. Ridd
MRCGP, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: m.ridd@bristol.ac.uk
Glyn Lewis
FRPsych, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tim J. Peters
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris Salisbury
FRCGP, MD
  • 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:

  • Re:Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale: Development and Validation - Ridd et al. (2011)
    Matthew J Ridd
    Published on: 16 December 2011
  • The importance of understanding doctor - patient relationships in the context of the patient's journey or 'trajectory' through illness and care experiences
    Niamh A. Gallagher
    Published on: 12 December 2011
  • Re:The depth of the patient-doctor relationship resembles personal continuity
    Matthew J Ridd
    Published on: 09 December 2011
  • Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale: Development and Validation - Ridd et al. (2011)
    Denis J. Pereira Gray
    Published on: 29 November 2011
  • The depth of the patient-doctor relationship resembles personal continuity
    Annemarie A. Uijen
    Published on: 29 November 2011
  • Personal knowledge in the Patient-Doctor Depth of Relationship scale
    Matthew J Ridd
    Published on: 29 November 2011
  • Doctor-patient relationships and outcomes
    Carolyn Tarrant
    Published on: 23 November 2011
  • Published on: (16 December 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Re:Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale: Development and Validation - Ridd et al. (2011)
    Re:Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale: Development and Validation - Ridd et al. (2011)
    • Matthew J Ridd, Clinical Lecturer
    • Other Contributors:

    We thank Sir Denis and colleagues for taking the time to comment on our paper and would like to follow-up on some of the points that he raises.

    Regarding the "Physician Responsiveness" questionnaire developed by Reis et al, it is indeed interesting that it shares a number of similar items to our "Patient-Doctor Depth of Relationship" scale. However, the two instruments have been developed with different theore...

    Show More

    We thank Sir Denis and colleagues for taking the time to comment on our paper and would like to follow-up on some of the points that he raises.

    Regarding the "Physician Responsiveness" questionnaire developed by Reis et al, it is indeed interesting that it shares a number of similar items to our "Patient-Doctor Depth of Relationship" scale. However, the two instruments have been developed with different theoretical underpinnings, ours being based on a conceptual model that distinguishes between seeing the same doctor (longitudinal care), individual consultations (primarily doctor-patient communication and duration of visit) and on-going patient-doctor depth of relationship.(1)

    We purposefully avoided developing a scale that measures the "therapeutic" nature of the relationship per se, because we see continuity primarily as a process and the possible therapeutic value of it as an outcome: from a patient leaving the consultation simply feeling better for seeing a known doctor, through to the prevention of a cardiovascular event because of better adherence to medication because it was recommended by a known doctor. The items in our scale were based on a published systematic search and synthesis of existing qualitative research on longitudinal patient-doctor relationships.(1)

    The qualitative work briefly described in the "Physician Responsiveness" questionnaire development paper, which underpins the items that they selected, is clearly important and we wonder if the team have plans to publish this as a piece of work in its own right? Finally, we have the advantage of developing and refining the questionnaire over two pilot rounds before it was used in the validation study. In contrast, Reis and colleagues propose a "reduced set of Patient Perceptions of Physician Responsiveness scale" comprising seven items, by repeating the analysis on the same dataset as was used for the original full 19-item version of the questionnaire. Most experts would recommend that the performance of a shortened version of a scale be re-tested in a fresh patient population.

    1. Ridd M, Shaw A, Lewis G, Salisbury C. The patient-doctor relationship: a synthesis of the qualitative literature on patients' perspectives. BJGP 2009; 59: 268-275.

    Competing interests:   Authors of paper.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (12 December 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for The importance of understanding doctor - patient relationships in the context of the patient's journey or 'trajectory' through illness and care experiences
    The importance of understanding doctor - patient relationships in the context of the patient's journey or 'trajectory' through illness and care experiences
    • Niamh A. Gallagher, PhD Graduate and Honorary Research Fellow, Department of General Practice.
    • Other Contributors:

    Thank you to Mathew Ridd and his colleagues for providing us with a user-friendly, patient-focused and conceptually grounded measure of relational continuity and associated personal features of primary care including being 'accepted' by one's health care provider, being 'really cared for' and 'feeling relaxed' in doctor-patient consultations. Measures such as the Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale are especially...

    Show More

    Thank you to Mathew Ridd and his colleagues for providing us with a user-friendly, patient-focused and conceptually grounded measure of relational continuity and associated personal features of primary care including being 'accepted' by one's health care provider, being 'really cared for' and 'feeling relaxed' in doctor-patient consultations. Measures such as the Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale are especially important at a time when modernization policies and continued restructuring of primary care services may lead to what has been referred to as 'forced' or 'involuntary' discontinuity of care [1] with negative outcomes for service users particularly those with complex chronic conditions or problematic illness trajectories [2]. The authors acknowledge however, that the patient- doctor relationship is a complex concept and we agree. With this in mind, we suggest that further longitudinal, theoretically informed qualitative research which attempts to elucidate 'thick descriptions' of the multi-layered perspectives of what it means to be 'known' by a doctor and 'know' a doctor will be important in advancing existing quantitative measures of relationship continuity. Such research should explore relationship continuity in the context of the patient's journey or 'trajectory' through illness and care experiences. This will help us understand which aspects of 'being known' and 'knowing' are particularly valued in general practice consultations. Such insights may also help us unpack further the meanings and interpretations of previously cited concepts presented in the relational continuity of care literature, such as 'biographical knowledge' [3] and the conception of 'whole person knowledge' [4] and, from there, inform our understanding of any causal relationship between longitudinal continuity of care and depth of relationship.

    Niamh A. Gallagher, niamhagallagher74@gmail.com, PhD Graduate and Honorary Research Fellow, Department of General Practice, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.

    Anne MacFarlane, anne.macfarlane@ul.ie, Professor of Primary Healthcare Research, Graduate Entry Medical School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.

    1. Flocke SA, Stange KC, Zyzanski SJ. The impact of insurance type and forced discontinuity of care on the delivery of primary care. Journal of Family Practice 1997;45(2):129-135.

    2. Gallagher N. The perspectives of patients with chronic illness on continuity of care in an out-of-hours general practice co-operative: a qualitative case study. Unpublished PhD thesis, 2010. National University of Ireland, Galway.

    3. Fairhurst K, May C. Knowing patients and knowledge about patients: Evidence of modes of reasoning in the consultation? Family Practice 2001;18(5):501-505.

    4. Kim TW, Samet JH, Cheng DM, Winter RM, Safran DG, Saitz R. Primary care quality and addiction severity: a prospective cohort study. Health Services Research 2007;42(4):755-772.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (9 December 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Re:The depth of the patient-doctor relationship resembles personal continuity
    Re:The depth of the patient-doctor relationship resembles personal continuity
    • Matthew J Ridd, Clinical Lecturer
    • Other Contributors:

    We are grateful to Dr Uijen and colleagues for drawing our attention to their recently published instrument, the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire (NCQ), parts of which appear to address similar issues to that assessed by our Patient-Doctor Depth of Relationship instrument. We look forward to reading their (forthcoming?) review of existing continuity of care instruments, upon which it was based. We note that in contrast...

    Show More

    We are grateful to Dr Uijen and colleagues for drawing our attention to their recently published instrument, the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire (NCQ), parts of which appear to address similar issues to that assessed by our Patient-Doctor Depth of Relationship instrument. We look forward to reading their (forthcoming?) review of existing continuity of care instruments, upon which it was based. We note that in contrast to our scale, the draft items in the NCQ were selected to "fit the Dutch situation"; and the instrument was piloted in a single patient population by getting general practitioner (GP) trainees to hand it out to patients "with one or more chronic diseases", who completed it at home (responders were more likely to be male). This could raise questions about the generalisability of their findings.

    We agree with Dr Uijen and colleagues that the quality of longitudinal patient-doctor relationships probably depends on more than just shared knowledge, yet they chose to remove two items relating to trust and relationship in a draft version of the NCQ before undertaking principal component analysis, on the grounds that they were "not distinctive for measuring continuity of care". While work developing the NCQ suggests that patient-GP relationships comprise "knowledge" and "commitment" aspects, we do not yet know whether measuring the relationship on these two scales results in a great spread of data than that which we observed on a single "depth" scale.

    Competing interests:   Authors of the paper.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (29 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale: Development and Validation - Ridd et al. (2011)
    Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale: Development and Validation - Ridd et al. (2011)
    • Denis J. Pereira Gray, Emeritus Professor of General Practice, University of Exeter
    • Other Contributors:

    McWhinney (1996)(1) stated that general practice is the "only discipline to define itself in terms of relationships - especially the doctor-patient relationship."

    The key problem in researching the patient-doctor relationship is the inability to do prospective randomised controlled trials, and it may not be ethical to break existing relationships. Hence, although there is considerable evidence supporting the imp...

    Show More

    McWhinney (1996)(1) stated that general practice is the "only discipline to define itself in terms of relationships - especially the doctor-patient relationship."

    The key problem in researching the patient-doctor relationship is the inability to do prospective randomised controlled trials, and it may not be ethical to break existing relationships. Hence, although there is considerable evidence supporting the importance of this relationship, the evidence is essentially a series of associations. Although associations cannot prove causation, multiple associations can indicate probability of an effect.

    Ridd et al. (2011) (2) state there is an "absence of research showing that continuity improves patient care ..." and that ... "research has consistently linked continuity of care with patient satisfaction, but evidence of its impact on patient outcomes is mixed". This is a doctor- orientated perspective. Patient satisfaction is itself a clinical outcome.

    Continuity of care has been consistently associated with patient satisfaction,(3) better compliance, (4,5) more disclosure of symptoms, (6) the provision of more health education advice, (7) better care for people with diabetes, (8) less use of hospital services, (9,10) a positive 'context effect', (11) and the development of trust in medical generalists by patients.(12)

    The evidence is not in equipoise. Most studies on continuity of care have either shown benefit for patients as above or found no significant effects. Only two studies worldwide have shown harm for patients from continuity. (13,14) This evidence, for us, indicates that the balance of probability is that continuity of care benefits patients. Important research from some of the same authors shows that patients will trade off as long as five days wait to see the general practitioner of their choice. (15) Moreover, there is strong evidence that patients benefit from longer consultations. (16-18) Continuity of care is the main mechanism through which patients gain more time with their family physicians.

    The need for a measure of the patient-doctor relationship in general practice and its depth is obvious. The methods used by Ridd et al. (2011) (2) are impressive, with 541 patients returning questionnaires and a rigorous approach to deriving a practicably short list of statements. The Cronbach Alpha is excellent.

    One major new finding is that the probability of developing a deep patient- doctor relationship was associated with continuity of care. The authors summarise this in a quadratic model showing that the probability of a deep relationship increases with each additional consultation with the same doctor.

    There are however some methodological issues. The continuity definition was defined as merely "12 months or ten encounters before the index consultation". This means the authors undervalue patients with many years of continuity of care in general practice, especially patients with 100-plus consultations with the same doctor, and those in families seen in several generations. In the St Leonard's Practice, Exeter (80 miles west of Bristol) the median duration of registration is 8.9 years and the mean as long as 13 years (Langley, P: personal communication, 2011). The authors however recognise that they may have under-researched long lengths of continuity.

    The work is not as "novel" as the authors claim and nor are all their statements. Research by a multidisciplinary team funded by the Fetzer Institute in the USA used similar methods in deriving an instrument measuring "Physician Responsiveness", (19) which academic psychologists consider a key component of depth in human relationships. This, instrument too, was from the patients' perspective (although uncited by Ridd et al. (2)) and was an earlier measure of the patient-doctor relationship, which was developed with patients of family physicians in UK, Canada and the USA.

    The second in Ridd et al.'s statements(2) is "The doctor knows me as a person" and Reis et al. (19) have "My doctor knows me as a person". Ridd et al. have "This doctor really cares for me" and Reis et al. have "My doctor really cares about my welfare". Ridd et al. have "This doctor takes me seriously" and Reis et al. have "My doctor takes my concerns seriously".

    A major review on patient-doctor relationships by the King's Fund, London(20,21) (also uncited by Ridd et al) highlighted Reis et al. (2008) (19) as one of three measures of the patient-doctor relationship. It is disappointing that a major article from a leading UK academic department omits such relevant references, but it is encouraging that the statements in Reis et al. (2008) and Ridd et al. (2011) are so similar. This increases the validity of both instruments.

    The authors are over-cautious about the difficulties in providing continuity of care. They do not mention personal lists, (7) which increase continuity of care(22) and also patient satisfaction. (3)

    This report represents a substantial advance. Quantifying increased depth in patient-doctor relationships with each additional consultation is a discovery of international importance, which justifies the long-held views of practising medical generalists.

    Denis J Pereira Gray, OBE FMedSci, Philip H Evans, MPhil FRCGP, Christine Wright, PhD, Peter Langley, PhD

    St Leonard's Research Practice, Athelstan Road, Exeter EX1 1SB, United Kingdom

    References

    1. McWhinney IR. William Pickles Lecture 1996. The importance of being different. Br J Gen Pract. 1996; 46: 433-436.

    2. Ridd MJ, Lewis G, Peters TJ, Salisbury C. Patient-Doctor Depth-of- Relationship Scale: Development and validation. Ann Fam Med. 2011; 9: 538- 545.

    3. Baker R, Streatfield J. What type of general practice do patients prefer? Exploration of practice characteristics influencing patient satisfaction. Br J Gen Pract. 1995; 45: 645-659.

    4. Charney E, Bynum R, Eldridge DE, et al. How well do patients take oral penicillin? A collaborative study in private practice. Pediatrics.1967; 40:188 -195.

    5. Ettlinger PR, Freeman GK. General practice compliance study: is it worth being a personal doctor? BMJ.1981; 282:1192 -1194.

    6. Becker MH, Drachman RH, Kirscht JP. A field experiment to evaluate various outcomes of continuity of physician care. Am J Public Health. 1974; 64:1062-1070.

    7. Pereira Gray DJ. The key to personal care. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1979; 29: 666-678.

    8. O'Connor PJ, Desai J, Rush WA, et al. Is having a regular provider of diabetes care related to intensity of care and glycemic control? J Fam Pract. 1998; 47: 290-297.

    9. Mainous AG, Gill JM. The importance of continuity of care in the likelihood of future hospitalization: Is site of care equivalent to a primary clinician? Am J Public Health. 1998; 88: 1539-1541.

    10. Menec VH, Sirski M, Attawar D, Katz A. Does continuity of care with a family physician reduce hospitalizations among older adults? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006; 11: 196-201.

    11. Blasi D, Harkness E, Ernst E, Georgiou A, Kleijnen J. Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet. 2001; 357: 757-62.

    12. Mainous AG III, Baker R, Love M, Pereira Gray DJ, Gill JM (2001) 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.

    13. Hanninen J, Takala J, Keinannen-Kiukaanniemi S. Good continuity may improve quality of life in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2001; 51: 21-27.

    14. Overland J, Yue DK, Mira M. Continuity of care in diabetes: to whom does it matter? Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2001; 52: 55-61.

    15. Gerard K, Salisbury C, Street D, Pope C, Baxter H. Is fast access to general practice all that should matter? A discrete choice experiment of patients' preferences. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008; 13 (Supp 2): 3-10.

    16. Morrell DC, Evans ME, Morris RW, Roland MO. The "five minute" consultation: effect of time constraint on clinical content and patient satisfaction. BMJ. 1986; 292: 870-873.

    17. Roland MO, Bartholomew J, Courtenay MJ, Morris RW, Morrell DC. The "five minute" consultation: effect of time constraint on verbal communication BMJ, 1986; 292: 874-876.

    18. Wilson A, Childs S. The relationship between consultation length, process and outcomes in general practice: a systematic review Br J Gen Pract. 2002; 52: 1012-1020.

    19. Reis HT, Clark MS, Pereira Gray DJ, et al. Measuring Responsiveness in the Therapeutic Relationship: a Patient Perspective. Basic and Applied Psychology. 2008; 30: 339-548.

    20. Greenhalgh T, Heath I. Measuring quality in the therapeutic relationship. London: King's Fund, 2010.

    21. Greenhalgh T, Heath I. Measuring quality in the therapeutic relationship--Part 1: objective approaches. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010; 19: 475-78.

    22. Roland M, Mayor V, Morris R. Factors associated with achieving continuity of care in general practice. J Roy Coll Gen Pract. 1986; 36: 102-104.

    Competing interests:   DJPG is a co-author of Reis et al. (2008) and is the Patron of the National Association for Patient Participation. All other authors: no competing interests declared.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (29 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for The depth of the patient-doctor relationship resembles personal continuity
    The depth of the patient-doctor relationship resembles personal continuity
    • Annemarie A. Uijen, GP and PhD graduate
    • Other Contributors:

    We compliment Ridd et al. on this interesting paper developing an instrument to measure the depth of the patient-doctor relationship in primary care. The instrument is designed to measure this from the patient perspective, which we believe is very important.[1]

    The patient-doctor relationship is an important theme in general practice. Having a personal care provider (personal continuity) is related to more confi...

    Show More

    We compliment Ridd et al. on this interesting paper developing an instrument to measure the depth of the patient-doctor relationship in primary care. The instrument is designed to measure this from the patient perspective, which we believe is very important.[1]

    The patient-doctor relationship is an important theme in general practice. Having a personal care provider (personal continuity) is related to more confidence in the care provider, more patient satisfaction and higher quality of patients life.[2-4] Ridd et al. developed an instrument that more extensively measures the patient-doctor relationship. Not just a single item ('Having a personal care provider') but several items are included in this measure. In this way, the aim of the measure of Ridd et al. resembles the aim of more extensive measures of personal continuity.[5 -7] However, we do miss a few aspects that refer to the strength of the GP -patient relationship as well.

    Recently, we developed the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire (NCQ): an instrument that measures patients' experienced continuity of care regardless of morbidity and across multiple care settings.[5] The NCQ includes several questions on personal continuity. In the development phase, we performed a systematic literature review and analysed patient interviews to identify all themes that are important in experiencing personal continuity, and constitute the strength of the relationship. We found two themes that we miss in the instrument of Ridd et al.: (1) whether the GP contacts patients by him/herself if it is needed (the patient does not has to ask) and (2) whether the GP keeps in contact sufficiently when the patient sees a variety of care providers. We think that these themes are important as well for measuring the depth of the patient-doctor relationship. Moreover, these themes might help to better discriminate between different depths of relationship, particularly at the deeper end of the spectrum. Looking at their results, which include a substantial ceiling effect for patients who have seen their doctor before, this certainly seems a limitation of the questionnaire of Ridd et al.

    In spite of these comments, we would like to congratulate the authors with this paper, which contributes to our knowledge on one of the core concepts in general practice.

    References

    1. Uijen AA, Schers HJ, van Weel C. Continuity of care preferably measured from the patients' perspective. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63(9):998- 999.

    2. Schers H, van den Hoogen H., Bor H, Grol R, van den Bosch W. Familiarity with a GP and patients' evaluations of care. A cross-sectional study. Fam Pract 2005; 22(1):15-19.

    3. Saultz JW, Albedaiwi W. Interpersonal continuity of care and patient satisfaction: a critical review. Ann Fam Med 2004; 2(5):445-451

    4. Freeman G, Hjortdahl P. What future for continuity of care in general practice? BMJ 1997; 314(28):1870-1873

    5. Uijen AA, Schellevis FG, Bosch van den WJHM, Mokkink HGA, Weel van C, Schers HJ. Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire (NCQ): development and testing of a questionnaire that measures continuity of care. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(12):1391-1399

    6. Gulliford MC, Naithani S, Morgan M. Measuring continuity of care in diabetes mellitus: an experience-based measure. Ann Fam Med 2006;4(6):548-55

    7. Hadjistavropoulos HD, Biem H, Sharpe D, Bourgault-Fagnou M, Janzen J. Patient perceptions of hospital discharge: reliability and validity of a patient continuity of care questionnaire. Int J Qual Health Care 2008;20(5):314-323

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (29 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Personal knowledge in the Patient-Doctor Depth of Relationship scale
    Personal knowledge in the Patient-Doctor Depth of Relationship scale
    • Matthew J Ridd, Clinical Lecturer
    • Other Contributors:

    We are very grateful to Dr Tarrant for taking the time to comment on our publication and for her complimentary statements. However, we think that the scale does measure personal knowledge.

    We were very conscious during the scale's development that knowledge appears to be a key aspect of longitudinal patient-doctor relationships (see our paper upon which the question items are based: BJGP 2009; 59: 268) and fou...

    Show More

    We are very grateful to Dr Tarrant for taking the time to comment on our publication and for her complimentary statements. However, we think that the scale does measure personal knowledge.

    We were very conscious during the scale's development that knowledge appears to be a key aspect of longitudinal patient-doctor relationships (see our paper upon which the question items are based: BJGP 2009; 59: 268) and four of the final eight items relate to knowledge. More items relating to personal knowledge were included in the initial draft and the original 32 item versions of the instrument (the link to the supplemental data, http://www.annfammed.org/content/9/6/538/suppl/DC1, may not have been working for Dr Tarrant), but as the paper details, the questionnaire was distilled down to eight items.

    A longer questionnaire, containing more personal knowledge-type questions, may have produced a greater spread of patient-doctor relational depth, but this would have been at the cost of ease of/time to completion. Trying to quantify what in many people's minds is a qualitative concept, human (albeit professional) relationships, is challenging, and further work of the type suggested by Dr Tarrant may provide some further insight into how successful we've been in this endeavour. Meanwhile, we offer this scale as an advance on existing measures and a means by which to further explore the value of continuity to patient care.

    Competing interests:   Authors of the paper

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (23 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Doctor-patient relationships and outcomes
    Doctor-patient relationships and outcomes
    • Carolyn Tarrant, Lecturer & Research Fellow

    This excellent paper provides us with a new measure of continuity, which I think gets to the heart of what really matters to patients - the quality of their relationship with their GP. The measure provides researchers with real opportunities to improve our understanding of the impact of good doctor-patient relationships on outcomes. Research to date has shown interpersonal continuity to be associated with improved healt...

    Show More

    This excellent paper provides us with a new measure of continuity, which I think gets to the heart of what really matters to patients - the quality of their relationship with their GP. The measure provides researchers with real opportunities to improve our understanding of the impact of good doctor-patient relationships on outcomes. Research to date has shown interpersonal continuity to be associated with improved health outcomes and reduced costs (1), but the conclusions we can draw from this work are limited by the lack of reliable and valid measures of the quality of the doctor-patient relationship. Good quality research in this area is increasingly important in the UK given the ongoing changes to the organisation and delivery of primary care, which reduce the opportunities for patients to develop ongoing relationships with their doctor. Ridd et al do not include the factor of personal knowledge in their measure, and I would be keen to see this included in future research alongside a measure of relationship depth - patients who see the same GP repeatedly may do so as much for the desire to see someone who knows about them and their case, as to see someone who 'cares' about them, and this more complete picture may give a better understanding of how and why continuity can produce better outcomes.

    I find it fascinating that the majority of patients who has seen the doctor before described their relationship as deep, and I feel that this need further, qualitative exploration (and confirmation that this is not just an artefect of the measure). Along with the authors, I would very much like to see future longitudinal, qualitative research to explore the development of the doctor patient relationship from one consultation to the next.

    1. Saultz JW, Lochner J. Interpersonal continuity of care and care outcomes: A critical review. Ann Fam Med, 2005;3(2):159-166.

    Competing interests:   None declared

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

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 9 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 9 (6)
Vol. 9, Issue 6
November/December 2011
  • 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.
Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale: Development and Validation
(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 + 18 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale: Development and Validation
Matthew J. Ridd, Glyn Lewis, Tim J. Peters, Chris Salisbury
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2011, 9 (6) 538-545; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1322

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale: Development and Validation
Matthew J. Ridd, Glyn Lewis, Tim J. Peters, Chris Salisbury
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2011, 9 (6) 538-545; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1322
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Clinical and cost-effectiveness of communication skills e-learning for primary care practitioners on patients musculoskeletal pain and enablement: the Talking in Primary care (TIP) cluster-randomised controlled trial
  • Enhancing empathy in GP consultations
  • 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
  • Beyond relational continuity
  • The aim of general practice: can it be explained in one sentence?
  • What mechanisms could link GP relational continuity to patient outcomes?
  • Professionals perspectives on factors affecting GP trainees patient mix: results from an interview and focus group study among professionals working in Dutch general practice
  • Better Doctor-Patient Relationships Are Associated with Men Choosing More Active Depression Treatment
  • The 'One in a Million study: creating a database of UK primary care consultations
  • Towards research-based learning outcomes for general practice in medical schools: Inaugural Barbara Starfield Memorial Lecture
  • Depth of the patient-doctor relationship and content of general practice consultations: cross-sectional study
  • Detection of patient psychological distress and longitudinal patient-doctor relationships: a cross-sectional study
  • In This Issue: Health Care Policy Affects the Lives of Real People
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Joint Display of Integrated Data Collection for Mixed Methods Research: An Illustration From a Pediatric Oncology Quality Improvement Study
  • Patient-Guided Tours: A Patient-Centered Methodology to Understand Patient Experiences of Health Care
  • Putting Evidence Into Practice: An Update on the US Preventive Services Task Force Methods for Developing Recommendations for Preventive Services
Show more Methodology

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Methods:
    • Mixed methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health services
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Continuity
    • Relationship

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