What do people appreciate in physicians' communication? An international study with focus groups using videotaped medical consultations.

BACKGROUND: The literature shows that the quality of communication is usually determined from a professional perspective. Patients or lay people are seldom involved in the development of quality indicators or communication. OBJECTIVE: To give voice to the lay people perspective on what constitutes 'good communication' by evoking their reactions to variations in physician communication. DESIGN: Lay people from four different countries watched the same videotaped standardized medical encounters and discussed their preferences in gender-specific focus groups who were balanced in age groups. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and fifty-nine lay people (64 NL, 72 IT, 75 UK and 48 BE) distributed over 35 focus groups of 6-8 persons each. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Comments on doctors' behaviours were classified by the GULiVer framework in terms of contents and preferences. RESULTS: Participants prevalently discussed 'task-oriented expressions' (39%: competency, self-confident, providing solutions), 'affective oriented/emotional expressions' (25%: empathy, listening, reassuring) and 'process-oriented expressions' (23%: flexibility, summarizing, verifying). 'Showing an affective attitude' was most appreciated (positive percentage within category: 93%, particularly facilitations and inviting attitude), followed by 'providing solution' (85%). Among disfavoured behaviour, repetitions (88%), 'writing and reading' (54%) and asking permission (42%) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Although an affective attitude is appreciated by nearly everybody, people may vary widely in their communication needs and preferences: what is 'good communication' for one person may be disliked or even a source of irritation for another. A physician should be flexible and capable of adapting the consultation to the different needs of different patients. This challenges the idea of general communication guidelines.

Information-giving sequences in general practice consultations.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: Most patients want to be involved in the decision-making process regarding their health and doctors need to improve their ability to meet these needs. Before implementing educational interventions, a better understanding of how information is provided in routine clinical practice is necessary. Aim of this study was to analyse the information-giving sequence of general practice consultations. METHODS: This is an observational study that involved six general practitioners (GPs) in single-handed practices and patients (aged between 16 and 74) who consulted over a 2-month period for a new illness episode. Transcripts of 252 consultations were coded using the Verona Medical Interview Classification System that provides three categories for information giving (information on illness management; instructions on illness management and information and instructions on psychosocial aspects). Lag1 and lag2 sequential analyses were performed. RESULTS: Information represented about one-third of the average consultation length. Medical and psychosocial information were preceded most often by patients' replies to previous questions (36% and 41%, respectively) and by listening and agreement (21% and 23%, respectively), less frequently by expression of opinions (10% and 6%, respectively). Listening and agreement were the most likely patient response after information (36%). GPs rarely tried to find out patients' view before and after the delivery of information or an instruction (<1%). CONCLUSION: The low frequency of expressions of opinions and questions immediately before and after GPs' information and instructions, and the lack of facilitating questions indicate a limited degree of patient involvement in the information-giving sequence.

Sex differences in the subjective tolerability of antipsychotic drugs.

In recent years, research efforts have been directed to better characterize the subjective experience of taking psychotropic drugs. This study investigated the sex difference in the subjective tolerability of antipsychotic drugs. Participants were recruited from patients under the care of psychiatric services serving geographical catchment areas in Croydon (UK), Verona (Italy), Amsterdam (Netherlands), and Leipzig (Germany). Clinically unstable patients with a clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia and a research diagnosis of schizophrenia, established using the Item Group Checklist of the Schedule for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry, were enrolled. Antipsychotic subjective tolerability was rated by means of the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale. During the recruitment period, 245 men and 164 women with schizophrenia were recruited. In both sexes, the most frequently reported side effects were difficulty in concentrating, tiredness, and weight gain; these side effects occurred in approximately 50% of men and in up to 70% of women. Extrapyramidal and anticholinergic reactions were reported more often by women, whereas men reported sexual problems more often. After background group differences were controlled for, sex was the strongest determinant of the subjective tolerability of antipsychotic drugs. We therefore conclude that sex differences in the subjective tolerability of antipsychotic drugs should be taken into account in the pharmacological management of patients with schizophrenia. Studies should no longer consider men and women as a homogeneous group, given that the subjective tolerability of antipsychotic drugs substantially differs between sexes.