4.2 Article

Which patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are perceived as 'difficult' by general practitioners?

Journal

PRIMARY CARE DIABETES
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages 353-359

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pcd.2019.01.001

Keywords

Type 2 diabetes mellitus; Doctor-patient communication; Complexity; Primary care

Funding

  1. German Medical Association Bundesarztekammer [06-115]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To find factors that are associated with a general practitioner's (GP's) subjective impression of a patient being 'difficult' within a sample of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: Secondary cross-sectional analysis of a cohort of GP patients with T2DM. GP questionnaire on clinical data and GPs' subjective ratings of patient attributes (including 'patient difficulty'). Patient questionnaire on sociodemographics and illness perceptions. Bivariate and multivariate analyses, adjusted for cluster-effect of GP practice. Results: Data from 314 patients from 49 GPs could be analysed. Independent associations with higher GP-rated difficulty were found for (odds ratio; 95% confidence interval): male patients from male GPs (1.27; 1.06-1.53), unmarried men (1.25; 1.04-1.51), men with non-German nationality (1.80; 1.24-2.61), patients perceiving more problems with diabetes (1.17; 1.04-1.30), patients with higher BMI (1.01; 1.00-1.02) and HbA1c values (1.06; 1.02-1.10), patients being perceived by the GP as less adherent (1.34; 1.22-1.46) and less health-literate (1.19; 1.04-1.35). Conclusions: The impact of patients' gender and illness perception yield new insights into GP-perceived complexity of care. Culturally and gender-sensitive communication techniques for adapting health care goals to patients' problems (rather than norm values) may alleviate GPs' work. (C) 2019 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier 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

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available