4.5 Review

Physician's gender, communication style, patient preferences and patient satisfaction in gynecology and obstetrics: A systematic review

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 89, 期 2, 页码 221-226

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.034

关键词

Patient-centered communication style; Gender; Patient preferences; Patient satisfaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Review of studies published in the last 10 years about women seeking gynecological- or obstetrical care and physician's gender in relation to patient preferences, differences in communication style and patient satisfaction. Methods: Studies were identified by searching the online databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The search strategies 'gender'; 'obstetrics' and 'gynecology' were combined with 'communication'; 'physician-patient relations': 'patient preference' and 'patient satisfaction'. Results: After screening title and abstract, evaluating full text and quality assessment, 9 articles were included in this review. Most patients preferred a female rather than a male gynecologist-obstetrician. This was partly explained by a more patient-centered communication style used by female gynecologists-obstetricians. Also experience and clinical competence were important factors in choosing a gynecologist-obstetrician. It was not clear whether patient's age or ethnicity influenced patients gender preference. Patient satisfaction increased when gynecologists-obstetricians used a patient-centered communication style. Conclusion: Preference for a female gynecologist-obstetrician might be explained by a more patient-centered communication style used by female gynecologists-obstetricians. Using a patient-centered communication style increases patient satisfaction. Practice implications: To increase patient satisfaction, gynecologists-obstetricians should learn to integrate patient-centered communication style into the consultation. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据