4.5 Review

Does improving patient-practitioner communication improve clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular diseases? A systematic review of the evidence

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 96, Issue 1, Pages 3-12

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.04.006

Keywords

Cardiovascular diseases; Systematic review; Patient-practitioner communication

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [K23 HL 098564-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To conduct a systematic literature review appraising the effects of interventions to improve patient practitioner communication on cardiovascular-related clinical outcomes. Methods: Databases were searched up to March 27, 2013 to identify eligible studies that included interventions to improve patient and/or practitioner communication skills and assessment of a cardiovascular-related clinical outcome in adults >= 18 years of age. Results: Fifteen papers were reviewed: the primary focus in seven studies was the patient; seven included a practitioner-focused intervention and one targeted both. Two patient-focused and two practitioner-focused studies demonstrated a beneficial effect of the intervention compared to a control group. Patient-focused studies were designed to improve patients' information-seeking and question-asking skills with their practitioner. Practitioner-focused studies were designed to either improve practitioner's general patient-centered communication or risk communication skills. Conclusion: Few interventions targeting patient practitioner communication have assessed the impact on cardiovascular-related clinical outcomes, limiting the ability to determine effectiveness. Additional rigorous research supported by theoretical frameworks and validated measurement is needed to understand the potential of patient practitioner communication to improve cardiovascular-related clinical outcomes. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available