Patient-centered communication during primary care visits for depressive symptoms: What is the role of physician personality?

Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York 14642, USA.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 3.23). 09/2008; 46(8):806-12.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Patient-centered communication (PCC) is associated with more appropriate treatment of depression in primary care. Aside from patient presentation, little is known about other influences on PCC. We investigated whether PCC is influenced by personality dispositions of primary care providers, independent of patient presentation.
Forty-six primary care providers completed personality scales from the NEO-Personality Inventory, revised and provided care to 88 standardized patients presenting with either major depression or adjustment disorder with comorbid musculoskeletal symptoms, either making or not making a medication request. Coders scored each visit using the measure of PCC, assessing physicians' ability to explore the patient's illness experience (component 1), understand the patient's psychosocial context (component 2), and involve the patient in collaborative discussions of treatment (component 3).
Adjusting for physician demographics, training, and patient presentation, physicians who were more open to feelings explored the patient's experience of illness more (P = 0.05). More dutiful, or rule-bound physicians engaged in greater exploration of the patient's psychosocial and life circumstances (P = 0.04), but involved the patient less in treatment discussions (P = 0.03). Physicians reporting more anxious vulnerability also involved the patient less (P = 0.03). Physician demographics, training, and patient presentation explained 4-7% of variance in the measure of patient-centered communication components, with personality explaining an additional 4-7% of the variance.
Understanding of personality dispositions that promote or detract from PCC may help medical educators better identify trainees of varying aptitude, facilitate medical career counseling, and address individual training needs in a tailored fashion.

Download full-text


Available from: Richard L Kravitz, Aug 18, 2014
9 Reads
  • Source
    • "phase 1 studies. 1 Goodwin and Friedman (2006); 2 Chapman et al. (2010); 3 Kern and Friedman (2008); 4 Roberts et al. (2007); 5 Taylor et al. (2009); 6 Booth-Kewley and Vickers (1994); 7 O'Connor et al. (2009); 8 Raynor and Levine (2009); 9 Gerend et al. (2004); 10 Vollrath et al. (1999); 11 Chatzisarantis and Hagger (2008); and Conner and Abraham (2001); and Conner, Grogan, Fry, Gough, and Higgins (2009); 12 de Bruijn et al. (2009); 13 Ferguson (2001); 14 LeBlanc and Ducharme (2005); 15 Chapman et al. (2009); 16 DeLongis and Holtzman (2005) and David and Suls (1999); 17 Feldman et al. (1999); 18 Watson and Pennebaker (1989); 19 Totman et al. (1980); 20 Devriese et al. (2000); 21 Ferguson et al. 2000a, 2002, 2003; 22 Roberts et al. 2009; 23 Schieman and van Gundy (2000); 24 Brown et al. (2003); 25 Schaller and Cialdini (1988); 26 Kim et al. (2007); 27 Ferguson et al. (2008); 28 Kim et al. (2004); 29 Ferguson et al. (2002); 30 Noyes et al. (2005); 31 Ferguson (2008); 32 Barsky et al. (1993); 33 Noyes et al. (1999); 34 Kasteler et al. (1976); 35 Moss-Morris and Petrie (2001); 36 Ferguson (2000); 37 Denollet et al. (1996); 38 Denollet et al. (2003); 39 Williams et al. (2008); 40 Williams et al. (2009); 41 Mols and Denollet (2010); 42 Grabe et al. (2010); 43 Tolmunen et al. (2010); 44 Lumley et al. (2007); 45 Dewaraja et al. (1997); 46 Helmers and Mente (1996); 47 Bekkers (2006); 48 Ferguson (2004a); 49 Paterson et al. (2009); 50 Almeida et al. (2008); 51 Pud et al. (2004); 52 Gramling et al. (1996); 53 Carver and Connor-Smith (2010) and Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007); 54 Ironson et al. (2008); 55 Eaton and Tinsley (1999); 56 Chapman et al. (2008); 57 Ruiz et al. (2006); 58 McCulloch et al. (2005); 59 Deary et al. (1996); 60 Cave et al. (2009); 61 Rastling et al. (2005) "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper sets out the case that personality traits are central to health psychology. To achieve this, three aims need to be addressed. First, it is necessary to show that personality influences a broad range of health outcomes and mechanisms. Second, the simple descriptive account of Aim 1 is not sufficient, and a theoretical specification needs to be developed to explain the personality-health link and allow for future hypothesis generation. Third, once Aims 1 and 2 are met, it is necessary to demonstrate the clinical utility of personality. In this review I make the case that all three Aims are met. I develop a theoretical framework to understand the links between personality and health drawing on current theorising in the biology, evolution, and neuroscience of personality. I identify traits (i.e., alexithymia, Type D, hypochondriasis, and empathy) that are of particular concern to health psychology and set these within evolutionary cost-benefit analysis. The literature is reviewed within a three-level hierarchical model (individual, group, and organisational) and it is argued that health psychology needs to move from its traditional focus on the individual level to engage group and organisational levels.
    Health Psychology Review 05/2013; 7(Suppl 1):S32-S70. DOI:10.1080/17437199.2010.547985 · 6.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Future research should also investigate the feasibility and effects of inquiry into family support in the context of primary care. Clinician training and implementation strategies for collaborative depression care in primary care settings [43,49] should also emphasize “First, do no harm” by alerting clinicians to the possibility that providers, no matter how well-intentioned, could deliver similar negative support messages as those delivered by patients’ family and friends [44,45,50]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Family and friends may help patients seek out and engage in depression care. However, patients’ social networks can also undermine depression treatment and recovery. In an effort to improve depression care in primary care settings, we sought to identify, categorize, and alert primary care clinicians to depression-related messages that patients hear from friends and family that patients perceive as unhelpful or detrimental. Methods We conducted 15 focus groups in 3 cities. Participants (n = 116) with a personal history or knowledge of depression responded to open-ended questions about depression, including self-perceived barriers to care-seeking. Focus group conversations were audio-recorded and analyzed using iterative qualitative analysis. Results Four themes emerged related to negatively-received depression messages delivered by family and friends. Specifically, participants perceived these messages as making them feel labeled, judged, lectured to, and rejected by family and friends when discussing depression. Some participants also expressed their interpretation of their families’ motivations for delivering the messages and described how hearing these messages affected depression care. Conclusions The richness of our results reflects the complexity of communication within depression sufferers’ social networks around this stigmatized issue. To leverage patients’ social support networks effectively in depression care, primary care clinicians should be aware of both the potentially beneficial and detrimental aspects of social support. Specifically, clinicians should consider using open-ended queries into patients’ experiences with discussing depression with family and friends as an initial step in the process. An open-ended approach may avoid future emotional trauma or stigmatization and assist patients in overcoming self-imposed barriers to depression discussion, symptom disclosure, treatment adherence and follow-up care.
    BMC Family Practice 06/2012; 13(1):64. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-13-64 · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "One study of medical student Machiavellianism--itself predicted by male gender, authoritarianism, intolerance of ambiguity, and external locus of control--found that Machiavellian students had more negative attitudes toward geriatric and hypochondriac patients [87]. Benjamin Chapman and colleagues studied community primary care physicians in Rochester, Minnesota, using personality tests and audiotaped standardized patient visits, and found that personality characteristics shaped their interviews of depressed patients [88]. Personality explained only 4-7% of the variance, however, while physician demographic factors explained only another 4-7%. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Physicians, nurses, and other clinicians readily acknowledge being troubled by encounters with patients who trigger moral judgments. For decades social scientists have noted that moral judgment of patients is pervasive, occurring not only in egregious and criminal cases but also in everyday situations in which appraisals of patients' social worth and culpability are routine. There is scant literature, however, on the actual prevalence and dynamics of moral judgment in healthcare. The indirect evidence available suggests that moral appraisals function via a complex calculus that reflects variation in patient characteristics, clinician characteristics, task, and organizational factors. The full impact of moral judgment on healthcare relationships, patient outcomes, and clinicians' own well-being is yet unknown. The paucity of attention to moral judgment, despite its significance for patient-centered care, communication, empathy, professionalism, healthcare education, stereotyping, and outcome disparities, represents a blind spot that merits explanation and repair. New methodologies in social psychology and neuroscience have yielded models for how moral judgment operates in healthcare and how research in this area should proceed. Clinicians, educators, and researchers would do well to recognize both the legitimate and illegitimate moral appraisals that are apt to occur in healthcare settings.
    Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine 07/2010; 5(1):11. DOI:10.1186/1747-5341-5-11
Show more