4.6 Article

Measuring the preference towards patient-centred communication with the Chinese-revised Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale: a cross-sectional study among physicians and patients in clinical settings in Shanghai, China

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 7, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016902

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2015M580283]
  2. Shanghai Health and Family Planning Commission [15GWZK1001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To adapt the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS), to a Chinese context, and explore the preference towards patient-centred communication among physicians and patients with the Chinese-revised Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (CR-PPOS). Design A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. Setting Clinical settings from eight medical units, including four community hospitals and four general hospitals, in Shanghai, China. Participants 1018 participants, including 187 physicians and 831 patients, completed this study in two successive stages. Outcome measurements Psychometric properties of the CR-PPOS and participants' score on the CR-PPOS. Results Compared with the original PPOS, the 11-item CR-PPOS obtained better psychometric indices. Physicians and patients scored differently on both the total CR-PPOS and its two subscales. Compared with physicians, the scores of patients were more influenced by their personal characteristics, such as age and education. Conclusions The CR-PPOS is a better instrument in a Chinese context than the original translated version. The divergence in the extent to which patient-centred communication is preferred among Chinese physicians and patients should be noted. Adapting physicians' communication strategy to patients' preferences based on their personal characteristics can be a viable approach towards improving clinical efficiency.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available