4.7 Article

Do general practitioners overestimate the health of their patients with lower education?

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 73, 期 9, 页码 1416-1421

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.07.031

关键词

France; Primary Care; Health inequalities; Patient/ physician interaction; Self-rated health; Education level

资金

  1. Inserm [A06024BS]
  2. CRAM
  3. Institut de Recherche en Sante Publique (IReSP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study sought to ascertain whether disagreement between patients and physicians on the patients' health status varies according to patients' education level. INTERMEDE is a cross-sectional multicentre study. Data were collected from both patients and doctors via pre- and post consultation questionnaires at the GP's office over a two-week period in October 2007 in 3 regions of France. The sample consists of 585 eligible patients (61% women) and 27 GPs. A significant association between agreement/disagreement between GP and patient on the patient's health status and patient's education level was observed: 75% of patients with a high education level agreed with their GP compared to 50% of patients with a low level of education. Patients and GPs disagreed where patients with the lowest education level said that their health was worse relative to their doctor's evaluation 37% of the time, versus 16% and 14% for those with a medium or high education level respectively. A multilevel multivariate analysis revealed that patients with a low educational level and medium educational level respectively were at higher risk of being overestimated by GP's in respect of self-reported health even if controlling for confounders. These findings suggest that people with a lower education level who consider themselves to have poor health are less reliably identified as such in the primary care system. This could potentially result in lack of advice and treatment for these patients and ultimately the maintenance of health inequalities. Crown Copyright (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier 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

4.7
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