Article

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: 2.94). 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

Full-text

Available from: Richard L Kravitz, Aug 18, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
69 Views
  • Source
    [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
    [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; 5:11. DOI:10.1186/1747-5341-5-11
  • Source
    [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 · 1.74 Impact Factor