Dataset Information

The Effect of Screen-to-Screen Versus Face-to-Face Consultation on Doctor-Patient Communication: An Experimental Study with Simulated Patients.

ABSTRACT: Despite the emergence of Web-based patient-provider contact, it is still unclear how the quality of Web-based doctor-patient interactions differs from face-to-face interactions.This study aimed to examine (1) the impact of a consultation medium on doctors' and patients' communicative behavior in terms of information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and shared decision making and (2) the mediating role of doctors' and patients' communicative behavior on satisfaction with both types of consultation medium.Doctor-patient consultations on pelvic organ prolapse were simulated, both in a face-to-face and in a screen-to-screen (video) setting. Twelve medical interns and 6 simulated patients prepared 4 different written scenarios and were randomized to perform a total of 48 consultations. Effects of the consultations were measured by questionnaires that participants filled out directly after the consultation.With respect to patient-related outcomes, satisfaction, perceived information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and perceived shared decision making showed no significant differences between face-to-face and screen-to-screen consultations. Patients' attitude toward Web-based communication (b=-.249, P=.02 and patients' perceived time and attention (b=.271, P=.03) significantly predicted patients' perceived interpersonal relationship building. Patients' perceived shared decision making was positively related to their satisfaction with the consultation (b=.254, P=.005). Overall, patients experienced significantly greater shared decision making with a female doctor (mean 4.21, SD 0.49) than with a male doctor (mean 3.66 [SD 0.73]; b=.401, P=.009). Doctor-related outcomes showed no significant differences in satisfaction, perceived information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and perceived shared decision making between the conditions. There was a positive relationship between perceived information exchange and doctors' satisfaction with the consultation (b=.533, P<.001). Furthermore, doctors' perceived interpersonal relationship building was positively related to doctors' satisfaction with the consultation (b=.331, P=.003).In this study, the quality of doctor-patient communication, as indicated by information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and shared decision making, did not differ significantly between Web-based and face-to-face consultations. Doctors and simulated patients were equally satisfied with both types of consultation medium, and no differences were found in the manner in which participants perceived communicative behavior during these consultations. The findings suggest that worries about a negative impact of Web-based video consultation on the quality of patient-provider consultations seem unwarranted as they offer the same interaction quality and satisfaction level as regular face-to-face consultations.

SUBMITTER: Tates K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5752968 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study investigates patient-centered mobile health (mHealth) technology in terms of the secondary user experience (UX). Specifically, it examines how personal mobile technology, under patient control, can be used to improve patient-provider communication about the patient's health care during their first visit to a provider. Common ground, a theory about language use, is used as the theoretical basis to examine interactions. A novel concept of this study is that it is one of the first empirical studies to explore the relative meaningfulness of a secondary UX for specific health care tasks.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate the extent that patient-operated mHealth technology can be designed to improve the communication between the patient and provider during an initial face-to-face encounter.MethodsThe experimental study was conducted in 2 large Midwestern cities from February 2016 to May 2016. A custom-designed smartphone app prototype was used as the study treatment. The experimental design was posttest-only control group and included video-recorded simulated face-to-face clinical encounters in which an actor role-played a patient. Experienced clinicians consisting of doctors (n=4) and nurses (n=8) were the study participants. A thematic analysis of qualitative data was performed. Quantitative data collected from time on task measurements were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsThree themes that represent how grounding manifested during the encounter, what it meant for communication during the encounter, and how it influenced the provider's perception of the patient emerged from the qualitative analysis. The descriptive statistics were important for inferring evidence of efficiency and effectiveness of communication for providers. Overall, encounter and task times averaged slightly faster in almost every instance for the treatment group than that in the control group. Common ground clearly was better in the treatment group, indicating that the idea of designing for the secondary UX to improve provider outcomes has merit.ConclusionsCombining the notions of common ground, human-computer interaction design, and smartphone technology resulted in a prototype that improved the efficiency and effectiveness of face-to-face collaboration for secondary users. The experimental study is one of the first studies to demonstrate that an investment in the secondary UX for high payoff tasks has value but that not all secondary UXs are meaningful for design. This observation is useful for prioritizing how resources should be applied when considering the secondary UX.

Project description:(1) Background: Teledermatology (TD) has exponentially grown since the onset of COVID-19, as the Face-to-Face Dermatology (F-F/D) modality changed within Public Health Systems. Although studies have been conducted on health results, we did not find any that analyzed the experiences of individuals who received care through TD. Therefore, the main objective of the study was to analyze the experiences of dermatology patients and the communication with health personnel. (2) Methods: A multicenter, controlled, randomized, non-blinded clinical trial was designed. Data were collected during the six months of follow-up. Four-hundred and fifty patients participated in the present study, who were assigned to two different groups: TD and F-F/D. The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the participants were collected. The ‘Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire’ (GS-PEQ) was used to assess patients’ experiences, and the Healthcare Communication Questionnaire (HCCQ) was used to measure the communication of patients with healthcare professionals. (3) Results: After six months of follow-up, 450 patients completed the study (TD = 225; F-F/D = 225) of which 53.3% were women, with an average age of 52.16 (SD = 19.97). The main reasons for the consultations were skin lesions (51.56%) located on the head and neck (46.8%), followed by the legs (20.7%). According to the GS-PEQ, TD users indicated having a greater confidence in the professional skills of the doctors (p < 0.01). However, the F-F/D group indicated having received more adequate information about their diagnosis/afflictions (p < 0.01), were more involved in the decisions related to their treatment (p < 0.01), and more satisfied with the help and treatment received (p < 0.01). Regarding the HCCQ, the TD group obtained better assessments with respect to if the patients had been treated in a rude and hasty manner, if the health professionals had addressed them with a smile, and if these could adequately manage the reason for the consultation (p < 0.01). (4) Conclusions: The results of the study generally showed positive experiences and communication. The TD group indicated having received less information about the diagnosis, were less involved in the decisions, and were less satisfied with the help and treatment received. However, they indicated having more confidence on the professional skills of the doctors, and that the work at the institution was better organized. In addition, they perceived better communication skills of the health professionals, although less respect for their privacy.

Project description:Evidence for the use of telephone consultation in childhood inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is lacking. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost consequences of telephone consultation compared with the usual out-patient face-to-face consultation for young people with IBD.We conducted a randomised-controlled trial in Manchester, UK, between July 12, 2010 and June 30, 2013. Young people (aged 8-16 years) with IBD were randomized to receive telephone consultation or face-to-face consultation for 24 months. The primary outcome measure was the paediatric IBD-specific IMPACT quality of life (QOL) score at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included patient satisfaction with consultations, disease course, anthropometric measures, proportion of consultations attended, duration of consultations, and costs to the UK National Health Service (NHS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02319798.Eighty six patients were randomised to receive either telephone consultation (n = 44) or face-to-face consultation (n = 42). Baseline characteristics of the two groups were well balanced. At 12 months, there was no evidence of difference in QOL scores (estimated treatment effect in favour of the telephone consultation group was 5.7 points, 95% CI - 2.9 to 14.3; p = 0.19). Mean consultation times were 9.8 min (IQR 8 to 12.3) for telephone consultation, and 14.3 min (11.6 to 17.0) for face-to-face consultation with an estimated reduction (95% CI) of 4.3 (2.8 to 5.7) min in consultation times (p < 0.001). Telephone consultation had a mean cost of UK£35.41 per patient consultation compared with £51.12 for face-face consultation, difference £15.71 (95% CI 11.8-19.6; P < 0.001).We found no suggestion of inferiority of telephone consultation compared with face-to-face consultation with regard to improvements in QOL scores, and telephone consultation reduced consultation time and NHS costs. Telephone consultation is a cost-effective alternative to face-to-face consultation for the routine outpatient follow-up of children and adolescents with IBD.Research for Patient Benefit Programme, UK National Institute for Health Research.

Dataset Information

The Effect of Screen-to-Screen Versus Face-to-Face Consultation on Doctor-Patient Communication: An Experimental Study with Simulated Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets