CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 409Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePatient Satisfaction in HealthcarePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Doctor–patient communication and the quality of care

Open access
Bensing, Jozien·1991·Social Science & Medicine
DOI 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90047-g
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this article a comparison is made between three independent sources of assessment of medical consultations. A panel of 12 experienced general practitioners rated 103 consultations with hypertensive patients on the quality of psychosocial care. There was a wide consensus between the judges, resulting in a high reliability score. Two contrasting groups were formed: consultations that were rated high and those rated low in quality of psychosocial care. A comparison was made between this general assessment of the quality of psychosocial care and a more detailed assessment of the same consultations on nine much used communication variables made by trained psychologists. Knowledge about doctor-patient communication proved to predict very well as to which quality group the consultations belonged. A very high percentage (95%) was predicted accurately, solely on the basis of these nine communication variables. Affective behaviour, and especially nonverbal affective behaviour had the strongest predictive power. In the last part of the study a third source of assessment, i.e. patients' satisfaction was compared with both other sources. Much lower relationships were found, although most were in the predicted direction. Affective behavior seems to be the most important in determining patient's satisfaction. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90047-g

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 71 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bensing, 1982, Ruimte voor de patient (“Room for the patient”), Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie en haar grensgebieden, 37, 19
  2. Gask, 1988, Improving the psychiatric skills of the general practice trainee: an evaluation of a group training course, Med. Educat., 4, 22
  3. Gask, 1987, Improving the psychiatric skills of established general practitioners: evaluation of group teaching, Med. Educat., 2, 21

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bensing, J.
Corresponding author
Bensing, Jozien
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1991-01
Volume
32
Issue
11
Pages
1301-1310
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0277-9536(91)90047-g
OpenAlex
W2153769200
Cited by
407
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 14
FWCI
19.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
physician-patient communication, quality of care, psychosocial care, hypertension, affective behaviour, nonverbal communication, patient satisfaction, general practitioners, communication variables, inter-rater reliability
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Aged, Communication, Consumer Behavior, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Physician-Patient Relations, Quality of Health Care, Reproducibility of Results

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