4.5 Article

Principles of effective communication with patients who have intellectual disability among primary care physicians

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 100, 期 7, 页码 1314-1321

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.01.022

关键词

Accessibility; Attitudes; Autonomy; Communication patterns; Decision-making; Intellectual disability; Language simplification; Plain language; Primary care physicians

资金

  1. Israel National Institute for Health Policy Research [R/65/2012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Examine physicians' implementation of effective communication principles with patients with intellectual disabilities (ID) and its predictors. Methods: Focus groups helped construct a quantitative questionnaire. The questionnaire (completed by 440 physicians) examined utilization of effective communication principles, attitudes toward individuals with ID, subjective knowledge and number of patients with ID. Results: Subjective knowledge of ID and more patients with ID increased utilization of effective communication principles. Provision of knowledge that allows patients to make their own medical decisions was predicted by more patients with ID, lower attitudes that treatment of this population group is not desirable, less negative affect and greater perception that treatment of this group is part of the physician's role. Effective preparation of patients with ID for treatment was predicted by higher perception of treatment of this group as part of the physician's role, lower perception of this field as undesirable and higher perception of these individuals as unable to make their own choice. Simplification of information was predicted by a greater perception of treatment of this group as part of the physician's role and more negative affect. Conclusion: Greater familiarity may enhance care for these patients. Practice implications: Increase exposure to patients with ID within training. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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