Development of a measurement system for complex oral information transfer in medical consultations.

BACKGROUND: Information exchange between physician and patient is crucial to achieve patient involvement, shared decision making and treatment adherence. No reliable method exists for measuring how much information physicians provide in a complex, unscripted medical conversation, nor how much of this information patients recall. This study aims to fill this gap by developing a measurement system designed to compare complex orally provided information to patient recall. METHODS: The development of the complex information transfer measurement system required nine methodological steps. Core activities were data collection, definition of information units and the first draft of a codebook, refinement through independent coding and consensus, and reliability testing. Videotapes of physician-patient consultations based on a standardized scenario and post-consultation interviews with patients constituted the data. The codebook was developed from verbatim transcriptions of the videotapes. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using a random selection of 10% of the statements in the transcriptions. RESULTS: Thirtyfour transcriptions of visits and interviews were collected. We developed a set of rules for defining a single unit of information, defined detailed criteria for exclusion and inclusion of relevant units of information, and outlined systematic counting procedures. In the refinement phase, we established a system for comparing the information provided by the physician with what the patient recalled. While linguistic and conceptual issues arose during the process, coders still achieved good inter-rater reliability, with intra-class correlation for patient recall: 0.723, and for doctors: 0.761. A full codebook is available as an appendix. CONCLUSIONS: A measurement system specifically aimed at quantifying complex unscripted information exchange may be a useful addition to the tools for evaluating the results of health communication training and randomized controlled trials.

[How do Norwegian dermatologists keep themselves professionally updated?]. / Hvordan holder norske hudleger seg faglig oppdatert?

BACKGROUND: We have explored continuing medical education among Norwegian dermatologists, especially their use of medical journals and the Internet. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In April 2001, a questionnaire was sent to 170 dermatologists, including junior doctors in specialist training. 129 questionnaires (76%) were returned, of which 16 were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: Mean time used per week reading articles in medical journals was 149 minutes (95% confidence interval (CI) 129-168 minutes). 90% of the respondents had Internet access at work and/or at home. Hospital consultants used the Internet for medical purposes for significantly more time per week than doctors in private practice (146 minutes (CI 98-195 minutes) versus 72 minutes (CI 52-93 minutes)). More hospital doctors had difficulties in getting or taking time off to attend courses and congresses (p < 0.01) and with financial costs (p < 0.001) than those in private practice. Most dermatologists found the paper version of journals (88%) and courses and congresses (79%) to be important for their continuing medical education, while fewer found medical databases on the Internet (57%) and the Internet version of journals (35%) to be so. In a logistic regression model, fewer private practitioners than hospital doctors (p = 0.011) and more female than male doctors (p = 0.014) had a feeling of insufficiency in regard to the increasing amount of medical information. INTERPRETATION: The Internet has become part of the professional life of most Norwegian dermatologists, but has so far not replaced traditional forms of continuing medical education.

[Do Scandinavian physicians understand each other's languages?]. / Forstår skandinaviske leger hverandre?

BACKGROUND: The national medical journals in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden publish selected papers from the other journals in their original languages. We wanted to know how well Scandinavian general practitioners understand their neighbour languages and English, today the "lingua franca" in medical publishing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 111 doctors (36 Norwegians, 32 Danes, 43 Swedes) completed a questionnaire in which they rated their own subjective understanding of Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and English on a five point Likert scale. RESULTS: The Norwegian doctors rated their understanding of Danish significantly higher than Swedish (p < 0.01) and English (p < 0.01). The Swedish doctors rated English significantly higher than Danish (p < 0.01) and Norwegian (p = 0.01) and Norwegian significantly higher than Danish (p = 0.02). The Danish doctors did not rate the foreign languages differently. INTERPRETATION: Particularly because of the Swedish doctors' incomplete understanding of Danish and to some extent Norwegian, there is a risk that future communication between doctors in these countries will be conducted in the English language.