Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief
    • Past Issues in Brief
  • 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
    • Current Opportunities
    • Job Board
  • COVID-19
    • Preprint Collection
    • Casenotes Blog

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
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief
    • Past Issues in Brief
  • 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
    • Current Opportunities
    • Job Board
  • COVID-19
    • Preprint Collection
    • Casenotes Blog
  • 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
  • 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
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tim J. Peters
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris Salisbury
  • 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

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Overview of Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale development and validation.

    a Of 189 patients, 93 were younger than 16 years; 45 did not attend/did not wait; 30 unable to complete questionnaire; 14 nonqualifying consultations; 7 other reasons.

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

    Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale.

    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Distribution of patient-doctor depth-of-relationship scores.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Predicted probability (unadjusted quadratic logistic regression model) of deep patient-doctor relationship with number of consultations.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Characteristics of Patients That Took Part in Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale Development and Validation

    Employment, No. (%)aEducation, No. (%)
    Stage No. of PatientsFemale No. (%)Mean Age, y (SD, Range)White (%)EmployedUnemployedRetiredOtherNonePrimarySecondaryGraduate
    Interviews (n=11)5 (45.5)61.5 (15.1, 33–79)11 (100)2 (18.2)1 (9.1)6 (54.5)2 (18.2)3 27.3)7 (63.6)1 (9.1)0 (0)
    Pilot round 1 (n=375)240 (65.2)47.9 (19.1, 16–89)351 (94.9)196 (53.9)10 (2.8)83 (22.8)75 (20.6)92 (26.2)163 (46.4)49 (14.0)47 (13.4)
    Pilot round 2 (n=154)87 (56.9)45.8 (16.7, 17–82)147 (96.1)78 (50.7)3 (2.0)26 (16.9)47 (30.5)47 (32.6)76 (52.8)14 (9.7)7 (4.9)
    Main study (n=490)285 (58.2)52.6 (19.8, 16–93)461 (96.2)202 (42.0)18 (3.7)167 (34.7)94 (19.5)157 (33.3)165 (35.0)73 (15.5)77 (16.3)
    Follow-up questionnaire (n=154)90 (58.4)55.2 (17.8, 17–87)148 (96.7)68 (44.4)3 (2.0)54 (35.3)28 (18.3)44 (29.5)50 (33.6)33 (22.2)22 (14.8)
    • ↵a Employed = full or part-time, including self-employed; Other = looking after home or family, long-term career, unable to work due to long-term sickness or “other.”

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • The Article in Brief

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

    Matthew J. Ridd, and colleagues

    Background The ongoing relationship, or continuity, between doctor and patient is a key element of family medicine/general practice. Tools to measure the impact of continuity have tended to look at duration, rather than depth, of the relationship. This report presents a new patient self-completion instrument designed to measure the depth of the patient-doctor relationship.

    What This Study Found The Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale can be used to evaluate the value of personal continuity. It has an eight-item scale with good internal reliability. Application of the scale finds an association between seeing the same doctor and a deep patient-doctor relationship, although the relationship appears to be nonlinear.

    Implications

    • Future research is needed to further establish the validity of the scale and examine a possible association between patient-doctor depth of relationship and improved patient care.
  • Supplemental Figure & Tables 1-2

    Supplemental Figure 1. Test-retest data (Bland Altman plot).

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental data: Figure & Tables 1-2 - PDF file, 3 pages, 176 KB
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 9 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine
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.
3 + 6 =
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
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • 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

  • The Use of Primary Care Big Data in Understanding the Pharmacoepidemiology of COVID-19: A Consensus Statement From the COVID-19 Primary Care Database Consortium
  • The 3 Cs of Content, Context, and Concepts: A Practical Approach to Recording Unstructured Field Observations
  • Using State Administrative Data to Identify Social Complexity Risk Factors for Children
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
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Online First

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

© 2021 Annals of Family Medicine