Agreement of physician and patient ratings of communication in medical encounters: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interrater agreement.

Autor: Röttele N; Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. Electronic address: nicole.roettele@mps.uni-freiburg.de., Schöpf-Lazzarino AC; Division of General Practice/Family Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany., Becker S; Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany., Körner M; Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany., Boeker M; Medical Data Science, Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany., Wirtz MA; Department of Research Methods, Freiburg University of Education, Freiburg, Germany.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Patient education and counseling [Patient Educ Couns] 2020 Oct; Vol. 103 (10), pp. 1873-1882. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Apr 17.
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.04.002
Abstrakt: Objective: To determine the agreement of physician and patient ratings of communication in medical face-to-face consultations.
Methods: A systematic search of twelve databases was conducted. Studies investigating agreement between physician and patient ratings of communication in medical face-to-face encounters and reporting interrater agreement were included. Methodological quality was assessed, and study characteristics and physician-patient agreement were narratively summarized. Meta-analysis was conducted for a subsample of the included studies investigating shared decision making.
Results: Of the 17 included studies, ten studies did not demonstrate any correspondence between physician and patient ratings. The remaining seven studies revealed poor to fair absolute agreement (κ between .13 and .42; κ w between .31 and .49; 95% CI 0.13 - 0.76) and poor to moderate consistency (r = .17 and .06; r polyc between .39 and .63; p < .05). Meta-analysis of six studies yielded small association (r polyc = .15).
Conclusion: Physicians and patients evaluate communication differently and at best, only slightly agree in their ratings, indicating that the construct of communication is not measurable in a stable manner.
Practice Implications: Decision makers and researchers should be aware that they assess different aspects of communication, depending on the perspective examined. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019120065.
Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interest None.
(Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: