CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 530Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Policy Implementation SciencePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations

Lewin, Simon, Skea, Zoe, Entwistle, Vikki A, Zwarenstein, Merrick, Dick, Judy·2001·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003267
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Communication problems in health care may arise as a result of health care providers focusing on diseases and their management, rather than people, their lives and their health problems. Patient-centred approaches to care are increasingly advocated by consumers and clinicians and incorporated into training for health care providers. The effects of interventions that aim to promote patient-centred care need to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for health care providers that aim to promote patient-centred approaches in clinical consultations. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline (1966 - Dec 1999); Health Star (1975 - Dec 1999); PsycLit (1887- Dec 1999); Cinahl (1982 - Dec 1999); Embase (1985-Dec 1999) and the bibliographies of studies assessed for inclusion. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series studies of interventions for health care providers that promote patient-centred care in clinical consultations. Patient-centred care was defined as a philosophy of care that encourages: (a) shared control of the consultation, decisions about interventions or management of the health problems with the patient, and/or (b) a focus in the consultation on the patient as a whole person who has individual preferences situated within social contexts (in contrast to a focus in the consultation on a body part or disease). The participants were health care providers, including those in training. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data onto a standard form and assessed study quality for each study. We extracted all outcomes other than health care providers' knowledge, attitudes and intentions. MAIN RESULTS: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies display considerable heterogeneity in terms of the interventions themselves, the health problems or health concerns on which the interventions focused, the comparisons made and the outcomes assessed. All included studies used training for health care providers as an element of the intervention. Ten studies evaluated training for providers only, while the remaining studies utilised multi-faceted interventions where training for providers was one of several components. The health care providers were mainly primary care physicians (general practitioners or family doctors) practising in community or hospital outpatient settings. In two studies, the providers also included nurses. There is fairly strong evidence to suggest that some interventions to promote patient-centred care in clinical consultations may lead to significant increases in the patient centredness of consultation processes. 12 of the 14 studies that assessed consultation processes showed improvements in some of these outcomes. There is also some evidence that training health care providers in patient-centred approaches may impact positively on patient satisfaction with care. Of the eleven studies that assessed patient satisfaction, six demonstrated significant differences in favour of the intervention group on one or more measures. Few studies examined health care behaviour or health status outcomes. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to promote patient-centred care within clinical consultations may significantly increase the patient centredness of care. However, there is limited and mixed evidence on the effects of such interventions on patient health care behaviours or health status; or on whether these interventions might be applicable to providers other than physicians. Further research is needed in these areas.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd003267

Cites

182 of 182 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the original review, the three-point scale for assessing intensity of patient-centredness and teaching/training tactics was found to be unreliable.

    “In the original review (Lewin 2001), authors assessed the intensity of patient‐centredness and teaching/training tactics for each intervention in the included studies using a three point scale (weak, medium, strong), but the review found this scale to be unreliable.”

    From Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations (2012) · cites this paper as Lewin 2001

  • Our review agrees with previous reviews that have shown the effectiveness of interventions in transferring PCC skills to providers.

    “Our review agrees with previous reviews that have shown the effectiveness of interventions in transferring PCC skills to providers (Griffin 2004; Lewin 2001; Rao 2007).”

    From Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations (2012) · cites this paper as Lewin 2001

  • The addition of 29 trials in this updated review supports the conclusion of the previous review (Lewin 2001) that interventions for providers to improve PCC skills are largely successful in transferring new skills to providers.

    “The addition of 29 trials in this updated review supports the conclusion of the previous review (Lewin 2001) that interventions for providers to improve patient‐centred care (PCC) skills are largely successful in transferring new skills to providers.”

    From Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations (2012) · cites this paper as Lewin 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lewin, S., Skea, Z., Entwistle, V. A., Zwarenstein, M., & Dick, J.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Dundee (GB)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
  • South African Medical Research Council (ZA)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Published
2001-10-23
Issue
4
Pages
CD003267-CD003267
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd003267
OpenAlex
W2896717180
Cited by
530
References
181
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 38
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2012-12-12)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
patient-centered care, medical consultation, health professions education, shared decision-making, consultation process, provider-patient communication, primary care physicians, nurse training, multi-faceted intervention
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Health Personnel, Humans, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Patient-Centered Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review