4.5 Article

Physician gender, physician patient-centered behavior, and patient satisfaction: A study in three practice settings within a hospital

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 95, 期 3, 页码 313-318

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.03.015

关键词

Physician gender; Patient-centeredness; Patient satisfaction; Gender bias; Outpatient; Inpatient; Emergency room

资金

  1. Regional Health Enterprise for South-East Norway (Heise Sor-Ost RHF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare male and female physicians on patient-centeredness and patients' satisfaction in three practice settings within a hospital; to test whether satisfaction is more strongly predicted by patient-centeredness in male than female physicians. Methods: Encounters between physicians (N = 71) and patients (N = 497) in a hospital were videotaped and patients' satisfaction was measured. Patient-centeredness was measured by trained coders. Results: In the outpatient setting, female physicians were somewhat more patient-centered than male physicians; patient satisfaction did not differ. In the inpatient and emergency room settings, female physicians were notably more patient-centered than male physicians; satisfaction paralleled these differences. Nevertheless, there was some, though mixed, evidence that patient-centeredness predicted satisfaction more strongly in male than female physicians, suggesting that patients valued patient-centered behavior more in male than female physicians. Conclusion: Even though satisfaction mirrored the different behavior styles of male and female physicians in the inpatient and emergency room settings, in all settings male physicians got somewhat more credit for being patient-centered than female physicians did. Practice implications: If female physicians do not consistently receive credit for high patient-centeredness in the eyes of patients, this could lead female physicians to reduce their patient-centered behavior. (C) 2014 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