Assessment
Taking into account patients’ communication preferences: Instrument development and results in chronic back pain patients

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.012Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

The objective is to develop an instrument that measures the extent of matching between patient communication preferences and physician communication behavior and takes various essential aspects of patient–provider communication into consideration. Furthermore we give a description of communication preferences and matching for chronic back pain patients.

Methods

Using an existing questionnaire for assessing patient communication preferences (named KOPRA), a questionnaire on the communication behavior of physicians (KOVA questionnaire) was developed with identical contents. Combining KOPRA and KOVA items results in preference-matching items. N = 703 patients were surveyed.

Results

After item selection all scales of the KOVA questionnaire are unidimensional, reliable, and satisfy the requirements of an item response theory model. The preference-matching scales are also unidimensional and reliable (Cronbach's alpha .87–.91). In addition, there is evidence of the validity of both instruments. Matching between communication preferences and behavior is relatively high overall, but there are some areas with clear discrepancies.

Conclusion and practice implications

The preference-matching scales allow areas to be identified in which physicians are not very successful in addressing the communication preferences of patients. With back pain patients, physicians should take particular consideration of the very great need for open communication and information about further treatment.

Introduction

One central aspect of patient-centered care is responding to patients’ preferences for communication with the provider [1]. The patient's communication preferences are a factor in determining what provider behavior is perceived as positive or negative by the patient and influence the relationship between physician communication behavior and patient-reported outcomes [2]. The preference for a traditional biomedical versus a patient-centered, participative communication style has often been studied (e.g. [3], [4]). Many studies also examine preferences regarding conveying information [5], emotional support [6], and establishing a relationship [7]. A key result of the research is that patients display relatively high inter-individual and intra-individual variability regarding the preference for certain communication styles (e.g. patient participation). Physicians must therefore individualize their communication style [8], [9], [10], [11]. There is no one style of communication that is appropriate for every patient.

What is needed is matching between the patient's communication preferences and the provider's communication behavior. There is some empirical proof of the positive influence of preference-matching on relevant outcomes such as adherence, emotional well-being or self-reported health behavior [12], [13].

As Kiesler and Auerbach [13] report, studies on patient preference-matching should be distinguished from studies that examine the congruence between the communication preferences of patients and providers (concordance studies, cf. e.g. [14], [15]). A mere congruence of communication preferences does not necessarily say anything about whether the provider is really concentrating on the patient's needs in a concrete situation.

Concerning measurement of agreement between patient communication preferences and provider communication behavior Kiesler and Auerbach arrive at two areas where future research is needed: 1. Instruments with identical contents that are directly related to each other should be used to assess patient preferences and provider behavior so that matching can be validly determined. One example of this is the Control Preference Scale [16], which however, was limited to measuring one particular aspect of patient–provider communication. 2. The method should include a prospective survey. This means that the patient should be asked about his preferences before treatment. Any other method could lead to bias due to the experience with the provider and recall deficiencies.

The objective of our study is to implement these two requirements and thus develop an instrument that

  • Takes various essential aspects of patient–provider communication into consideration (cf. e.g. [17], [18]) (for example in addition to patient involvement also facilitating the exchange of information and establishing a good interpersonal relationship).

  • Satisfies psychometric requirements (unidimensionality, reliability, meeting the requirements of item response theory (IRT) [19]).

Such an instrument is not yet available. With the help of the instrument developed, a descriptive analysis of matching between patient communication preferences and physician communication behavior will be conducted for patients with chronic back pain. For this patient group, which is highly relevant for epidemiology and health care costs [20], [21], patient–physician communication has thus far been studied infrequently in comparison with other chronic illnesses (e.g. cancer, cf. [22]). There are studies that show that when interacting with the physician, patients with chronic back pain place a great deal of importance on understanding information, receiving reassurance, and discussing psychosocial issues [22] and that they are often not very satisfied with the information received from the physician [23]. However, to the best of our knowledge, nothing has been published thus far on matching between communication preferences and physician communication behavior in patients with chronic back pain.

Section snippets

Instrument development

The KOPRA questionnaire [24], an instrument for measuring communication preferences that was described in a recently published study, includes essential aspects of patient–provider interaction and has good psychometric properties. The KOPRA questionnaire consists of 32 items categorized in four scales – “Patient participation and patient orientation” PPO, “Effective and open communication” EOC, “Emotionally supportive communication” ESC, and “Communication about personal circumstances” CPC. To

KOVA questionnaire

Response frequency and ceiling/floor effects: With one exception, the percentage of missing values was always under 5% (range 0.8–3.7%). There were no ceiling or floor effects for the KOVA items. Due to the good distribution properties, no KOVA item was selected in this evaluation step.

Unidimensionality: To ensure unidimensionality, two items from each of the four scales had to be selected. The model fit values for testing unidimensionality before and after item selection are shown in Table 3.

KOVA questionnaire

The strengths of the KOVA questionnaire are that, because the contents are related to the patient-oriented KOPRA questionnaire (cf. [24]), the instrument is also considered patient oriented. That is, it covers the communication aspects that are important for chronically ill patients. In addition, after item selection, the instrument has good psychometric properties – the scales are unidimensional, reliable, and satisfy the requirements of the Rasch model. The correlations between the KOVA

Acknowledgments

The study was conducted in the project “Patient–provider communication for chronically ill patients: gender- and age-specific preferences of patients,” which is funded in Germany by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant no.: 01 GX 0740) as part of the funding priority for “Chronic Illnesses and Patient Orientation” (www.forschung-patientenorientierung.de). We wish to thank the cooperating rehabilitation centers for their support in data collection: Eisenmoorbad Bad Schmiedeberg

References (48)

  • M.Y. Smith et al.

    Patient–physician communication in the context of persistent pain: validation of a modified version of the patients’ Perceived Involvement in Care Scale

    J Pain Symptom Manage

    (2006)
  • M. Neumann et al.

    Analyzing the “nature” and “specific effectiveness” of clinical empathy: a theoretical overview and contribution towards a theory-based research agenda

    Patient Educ Couns

    (2009)
  • H. Ishikawa et al.

    Patients’ preferences for decision making and the feeling of being understood in the medical encounter among patients with rheumatoid arthritis

    Arthritis Rheum

    (2006)
  • S.J. Franssen et al.

    Psychological factors and preferences for communicating prognosis in esophageal cancer patients

    Psychooncology

    (2009)
  • S. van Dulmen et al.

    Patients’ preferences and experiences in handling emotions: a study on communication sequences in primary care medical visits

    Patient Educ Couns

    (2004)
  • M.C. Beach et al.

    Is physician self-disclosure related to patient evaluation of office visits?

    J Gen Intern Med

    (2004)
  • G. Rodin et al.

    Clinician–patient communication: a systematic review

    Support Care Cancer

    (2009)
  • W. Levinson et al.

    Not all patients want to participate in decision making. A national study of public preferences

    J Gen Intern Med

    (2005)
  • M. Fujimori et al.

    Preferences of cancer patients regarding communication of bad news: a systematic literature review

    Jpn J Clin Oncol

    (2009)
  • J.A. Cvengros et al.

    Patient preference for and reports of provider behavior: impact of symmetry on patient outcomes

    Health Psychol

    (2009)
  • E. Krupat et al.

    When physicians and patients think alike: patient-centered beliefs and their impact on satisfaction and trust

    J Fam Pract

    (2001)
  • N.K. Janz et al.

    Patient–physician concordance: preferences, perceptions, and factors influencing the breast cancer surgical decision

    J Clin Oncol

    (2004)
  • G. Makoul

    Essential elements of communication in medical encounters: the Kalamazoo Consensus Statement

    Acad Med

    (2001)
  • M.O. Edelen et al.

    Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement

    Qual Life Res

    (2007)
  • Cited by (25)

    • People with low back pain want clear, consistent and personalised information on prognosis, treatment options and self-management strategies: a systematic review

      2019, Journal of Physiotherapy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Twelve studies recruited participants from primary care practice,24,25,35,44,49–51,59,61,66,68,70 eight from tertiary pain clinics,33,38,52–55,63,64 nine from hospital or rehabilitation clinics,34,36,37,41,45,48,57,60,62 three from specialist spine or osteopathy clinics,39,40,42 four from the general community,43,46,56,71 two from research centres,47,69 one from the intervention arm of a trial,58 one from an education forum,67 and one from an occupational health clinic.65 The duration of LBP was either undefined or mixed in 15 studies,24,25,40,41,46,47,49–51,56–58,66,70,71 subacute (≥ 6 weeks) in one study,59 chronic (> 3 months) in 22 studies,33–39,42–45,48,52–55,60,61,63,64,67,69 and acute in three studies.62,65,68 Of the included studies, 33 were qualitative studies,25,33–35,38,40,42–61,63,64,67–71 five were quantitative studies,24,36,37,62,65 and three used mixed methods.39,41,66

    • Patients’ perceived needs of health care providers for low back pain management: a systematic scoping review

      2018, Spine Journal
      Citation Excerpt :

      There were no studies on acute back pain only (<6 weeks duration). Thirty studies used qualitative methods [24,36,37,40,43–45,47,50–53,55–58,60,62,65–76] and 12 quantitative methods [22,23,38,39,41,42,48,49,54,61,64]. Of the qualitative studies, 21 used interviews [24,36,40,44–47,50,52,57,58,75,76], 8 used focus group discussions [37,43,55,56,67–70], 5 used questionnaires [22,39,60,65,74], 1 used surveys [51], and 1 used testimonials [53].

    • Patient communication competence: Development of a German questionnaire and correlates of competent patient behavior

      2014, Patient Education and Counseling
      Citation Excerpt :

      We administered instruments other than the CoCo questionnaire to test construct validity (c.f. the hypotheses in Section 2.4.2), and to determine predictors of communication competence (c.f. Section 2.4.3). We employed the KOVA questionnaire [27] (which captures physicians’ communication behavior as perceived by patients) and a scale to evaluate communication with the physician (the ECP scale). That scale was newly developed for the study; it contains 5 Items (i.e., “I accomplished what was important to me during the consultation”) reflecting a summarizing assessment of the utility of talks with the physician.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text