CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 275Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePatient Satisfaction in HealthcarePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

The impact of general practitioners’ patient-centredness on patients’ post-consultation satisfaction and enablement

Mead, Nicola, Bower, Peter, Hann, Mark·2002·Social Science & Medicine
DOI 10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00171-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The concept of patient-centredness is complex, but is generally seen as an approach that emphasises, on the part of the health professional, attention to patients' psychosocial (as well as physical) needs, the use of psychotherapeutic behaviours to convey a sense of partnership and positive regard, and active facilitation of patients' involvement in decision-making about their care. To date, there is little consistent evidence that doctors' use of a 'patient-centred' consulting style leads to better patient outcomes. However, previous studies have been limited by a lack of conceptual clarity and methodological consensus, and by the absence of a clear theoretical framework linking patient-centredness to outcomes. In this study, three specific, conceptually distinct dimensions of a patient-centred consulting style were operationalised: the 'biopsychosocial perspective', 'sharing power and responsibility' and the 'therapeutic alliance'. These dimensions were measured in terms of three 'socio-emotional' and two 'task-relevant' general practitioner (GP) behaviours using in-depth observational techniques applied to 173 videotaped GP consultations. Theoretically-derived hypotheses were tested concerning relationships between these patient-centred behaviours and two different consultation outcomes: patient satisfaction and enablement. Multivariate regression showed that GPs' patient-centred behaviours did not predict either outcome. The robustness of these findings is considered within the context of study strengths and weaknesses, and implications for future research are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00171-x

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 97 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mead, N., Bower, P., & Hann, M.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Mead, Nicola
ORCID
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-07
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
283-299
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00171-x
OpenAlex
W2122228946
Cited by
275
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 16
FWCI
27.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
patient-centredness, general practitioners, patient satisfaction, enablement, biopsychosocial perspective, therapeutic relationship, shared decision-making, physician-patient relationship, general practitioner visits
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Communication, Cooperative Behavior, Decision Making, Empathy, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Family, Multivariate Analysis, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Patient-Centered Care, Self Efficacy

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