4.5 Article

Pain Assessment: The Roles of Physician Certainty and Curiosity

期刊

HEALTH COMMUNICATION
卷 28, 期 7, 页码 740-746

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2012.715380

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R21 CA124913, R01 CA155376, R01CA155376] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Undertreatment of pain is common even when caused by serious illness. We examined whether physician-patient communication (particularly language indicating physician certainty) was associated with incomplete (i.e., premature closure) of pain assessment among patients with serious illness. Standardized patients (SPs) trained to portray patients with serious illness conducted unannounced, covertly audio-recorded visits to 20 consenting family physicians and 20 medical specialists. We coded extent of pain assessment, physician voice tone, and a measure of the degree to which physicians explored and validated patient concerns. To assess physician certainty, we searched transcripts for use of words that conveyed certainty using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program. SP role fidelity was 94%, and few physicians were suspicious that they had seen an SP (14% of visits). Regression analyses showed that physicians who used more certainty language engaged in less thorough assessment of pain ( = -0.48, p < .05). Conversely, physicians who engaged in more exploring and validating of patient concerns ( = 0.27, p < .05) had higher ratings on anxiety/concerned voice tone ( = 0.25, p <.01) and engaged in more thorough assessment of pain. Together, these three factors accounted for 38% of the variance in pain assessment. Physicians who convey certainty in discussions with patients suffering from pain may be more likely to close prematurely their assessment of pain. We found that expressions of physician concern and responsiveness (curiosity) were associated with superior pain assessment. Further study is needed to determine whether these associations are causal and mutable.

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