Cited by 132Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare

Meeting in the middle: improving communication in primary health care consultations with people with an intellectual disability

Ziviani, Jenny, Lennox, Nicholas, Allison, Heather, Lyons, Michael, Del Mar, Chris·2004·Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability

Abstract

The increased presence and participation in Australian society of people with an intellectual disability provides challenges for the provision of primary health care. General practitioners (GPs) identify themselves as ill equipped to provide for this heterogeneous population. A major obstacle to the provision of appropriate health care is seen as inadequate communication between the GP and the person with an intellectual disability, who may or may not be accompanied by a carer or advocate. This qualitative study in which five GPs, three people with intellectual disability, seven carers and two advocates (parent and friend) were interviewed was conducted in Brisbane, Australia. The aim was to better understand the factors that have an impact upon the success of communication in a medical consultation. Findings suggested that GPs were concerned with the aspects of communication difficulties which influenced their ability to adequately diagnose, manage and inform patients. Implications for practice management were also identified. People with intellectual disability reported frustration when they felt that they could not communicate adequately with the GP and annoyance when they were not included in the communication exchange. Carers were strong advocates for the person with intellectual disability, but indicated insufficient skill and knowledge to provide the level of assistance required in the consultation. The outcome was a model of cooperation that outlined the responsibilities of all players in the medical encounter, prior to, during and after the event.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13668250412331285163

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ziviani, J., Lennox, N., Allison, H., Lyons, M., & Del Mar, C.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • Centre for General Practice, University of Queensland, Australia
Venue
Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability
Published
2004-09
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
211-225
ISSN
  • 0045-0634 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-8250
  • 1469-9532
OpenAlex
W1990912406
Cited by
132
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
FWCI
5.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
intellectual disability, primary care, physician-patient communication, general practitioners, caregivers, patient advocates, medical consultation, communication difficulties, diagnosis and management, patient inclusion, practice management, cooperation models

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