nach oben

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

Erschienen in:

01.03.2014 | Original Research Article

Hostile Sexist Male Patients and Female Doctors: A Challenging Encounter

verfasst von: Christina Klöckner Cronauer, Marianne Schmid Mast

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 1/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Patient characteristics and attitudes can affect how patients react to the physician’s communication style, and this reaction can then influence consultation outcomes.

Objective

The goal of the present study was to investigate whether the attitude of a sexist male patient affects how he perceives a female physician’s nonverbal communication and whether this then results in expecting less positive consultation outcomes.

Study design and setting

Participants were analog patients who viewed four videotaped male and four videotaped female physicians in a consultation with one of their patients. Physician videos were preselected to represent a range of high and low patient-centered physician nonverbal behavior. Participants filled in questionnaires to assess how patient-centered they perceived the female and male physicians’ nonverbal communication to be, and participants indicated how positive they expected the consultation outcomes to be. Moreover, we assessed the participants’ sexist attitudes with a questionnaire measuring hostile and benevolent sexism.

Participants

Students (N = 60) from a French-speaking university in Switzerland were recruited on campus.

Main outcome measure

The main outcome measures were the extent to which analog patients expect the consultation outcomes to be positive (high satisfaction, increased trust in the physician, intention to adhere to treatment recommendations, and perceived physician competence) and the extent to which analog patients perceive physicians as patient-centered (judged from the physicians’ nonverbal cues).

Results

Male analog patients’ hostile sexism was negatively related to perceiving the physicians as patient-centered, and male analog patients’ hostile sexism was also negatively related to expected positive consultation outcomes. For male patients viewing female physicians, mediation analysis revealed that perceived physician patient-centeredness mediated the negative relationship between hostile sexism and expected positive consultation outcomes.

Conclusion

Male hostile sexist patients perceive a female physician’s nonverbal communication as less patient-centered and this negatively affects their expectation of positive outcomes from the consultation.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Beck RS, Daughtridge R, Sloane PD. Physician-patient communication in the primary care office: a systematic review. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2002;15(1):25–38.PubMed

Roter DL, Frankel RM, Hall JA, Sluyter D. The expression of emotion through nonverbal behavior in medical visits. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:28–34.CrossRef

Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;152:1423–33.

Schmid Mast M, Hall JA, Roter DL. Disentangling physician gender and communication style effects on patient satisfaction and behavior in a virtual medical visit. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;3:1–28.

Stewart MA, Brown J, Donner A, McWhinney I, Oates J, Weston W, et al. The impact of patient-centered care on patient outcomes. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:796–804.PubMed

Bensing JM, Kerssens JJ, van der Pasch M. Patient directed gaze as a tool for discovering and handling psychosocial problems in general practice. J Nonverbal Behav. 1995;19(4):223–42.CrossRef

Epstein RM. The science of patient-centered care. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:805–7.PubMed

Bensing JM. Doctor–patient communication and the quality of care. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32:1301–10.PubMedCrossRef

DiMatteo MR, Hays RD, Prince LM. Relationship of physicians’ nonverbal communication skills and standardized patient satisfaction. J Gen Intern Med. 1986;18:170–4.

10.

Aruguete MS, Roberts CA. Gender, affiliation, and control in physician–patient encounters. Sex Roles. 2000;42:107–18.CrossRef

11.

Robinson JD. Nonverbal communication and physician–patient interaction. In: Manusov V, Patterson ML, editors. The sage handbook of nonverbal communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2006. p. 437–59.CrossRef

12.

Benbassat J, Pilpel D, Tidhar M. Patients’ preferences for participation in clinical decision making: a review of published surveys. Behav Med. 1998;24:81–8.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted RA. Not all patients want to participate in decision making. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(6):531–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

14.

Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A, Moskowitz MA. Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Intern Med. 1989;4:23–30.

15.

Braman AC, Gomez RG. Patient personality predicts preferences for relationships with doctors. Pers Individ Differ. 2004;37:815–26.CrossRef

16.

Cousin G, Schmid Mast M. Agreeable patient meets affiliative physician: how physician behavior affects patient outcomes depends on patient personality. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90(3):399–404. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.010.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Hall JA, Roter DL. Do patients talk differently to male and female physicians? A meta-analytic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48:217–24.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Roter DL, Hall JA, Aoki Y. Physician gender effects in medical communication. JAMA. 2002;288:756–64.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Sandhu H, Adams A, Singleton L, Clark-Carter D, Kidd J. The impact of gender dyads on doctor–patient communication: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76:348–55.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Hall JA, Irish JT, Roter DL, Ehrlich CM, Miller LH. Gender in medical encounters: an analysis of physician and patient communication in a primary care setting. Health Psychol. 1994;13:384–92.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Cousin G, Schmid Mast M, Jaunin-Stalder N. When physician expressed uncertainty leads to patient dissatisfaction: a gender study. Med Educ. 2013;47(9):923-31.

22.

Roter DL, Hall JA. Doctors talking with patients/patients talking with doctors: improving communication in medical visits. Westport: Auburn House/Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc; 1992.

23.

Blanch DC, Hall JA, Roter DL, Frankel RM. Medical student gender and issues of confidence. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;72(3):374–81. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.021.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Blanch-Hartigan DC, Hall JA, Roter DL, Frankel RM. Gender bias in patients’ perceptions of patient-centered behaviors. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(3):315–20.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Schmid Mast M. On the importance of nonverbal communication in the physician–patient interaction. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67:315–8.

26.

Ambady N, Koo J, Rosenthal R, Winograd CH. Physical therapists’ nonverbal communication predicts geriatric patients’ health outcomes. Psychol Aging. 2002;17:443–52.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Ambady N, LaPlante D, Nguyen T, Rosenthal R, Chaumeton N, Levinson W. Surgeons’ tone of voice: a clue to malpractice history. Surgery. 2002;132:5–9.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Hall JA, Harrigan JA, Rosenthal R. Nonverbal behavior in clinician–patient interaction. Appl Prev Psychol. 1995;4:21–37.CrossRef

29.

Glick P, Fiske ST. The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70:491–512.CrossRef

30.

Foss C, Sundby J. The construction of the gendered patient: hospital staff’s attitudes to female and male patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;49(1):45–52.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Glick P, Fiske ST. Hostile and benevolent sexism. Psychol Women Q. 1997;21(1):119–35. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x.CrossRef

32.

Blanch-Hartigan D, Hall JA, Krupat E, Irish JT. Can naive viewers put themselves in the patients’ shoes? Reliability and validity of the analogue patient methodology. Med Care. 2013;51(3):e16–21. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31822945cc.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Schmid Mast M, Kindlimann A, Langewitz W. Recipient’s perspective on breaking bad news: how you put it really make a difference. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;58:244–51.

34.

Schmid Mast M, Hall JA, Klöckner C, Choi E. Physician gender affects how physician nonverbal behavior is related to patient satisfaction. Med Care. 2008;46:1212–8.

35.

Krupat E, Frankel RM, Stein T, Irish JT. The four habits coding scheme: validation of an instrument to assess clinicians’ communication behavior. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;62:38–45.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Roter DL, Hall JA, Katz NR. Relations between physicians’ behaviors and analogue patients’ satisfaction, recall, and impressions. Med Care. 1987;25:437–49.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Shapiro DE, Boggs SR, Melamed BG, Graham-Pole J. The effect of varied physician affect on recall, anxiety, and perceptions in women at risk for breast cancer: a simulated study. Health Psychol. 1992;11:61–6.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Fogarty LA, Curbow BA, Wingard JR, McDonnell K, Somerfield MR. Can 40 seconds of compassion reduce patient anxiety? J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:371–9.PubMed

39.

Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centered consultations and outcomes in primary care: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48:51–61.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Meng XL, Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychol Bull. 1992;111:172–5.CrossRef

41.

Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173–82.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Glick P, Fiske ST. The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70(3):491–512.CrossRef

43.

Napier J, Thorisdottir H, Jost J. The joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of hostile and benevolent justifications for gender inequality and their relations to subjective well-being. Sex Roles. 2010;62(7):405–19. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7.CrossRef

44.

Jackson JL, Kroenke K. Difficult patient encounters in the ambulatory clinic: clinical predictors and outcomes. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(10):1069–75. doi:10-1001/pubs.ArchInternMed. ISSN-0003-9926-159-10-ioi80572.

45.

Delgado A, Lopez-Fernandez LA, Luna Jde D, Saletti-Cuesta L, Gil N, Jimenez M. The role of expectations in preferences of patients for a female or male general practitioner. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(1):49–57. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.02.028.

46.

Richeson JA, Shelton JN. Brief report: thin slices of racial bias. J Nonverbal Behav. 2005;29:75–86.CrossRef

47.

Rosenthal GE, Sahnnon SE. The use of patient perceptions in the evaluation of health-care delivery systems. Med Care. 1997;35(11):NS58–68.

48.

van Vliet LM, van der Wall E, Albada A, Spreeuwenberg PM, Verheul W, Bensing JM. The validity of using analogue patients in practitioner–patient communication research: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1528–43. doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2111-8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Titel: Hostile Sexist Male Patients and Female Doctors: A Challenging Encounter
verfasst von: Christina Klöckner Cronauer
Marianne Schmid Mast
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2014
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 1/2014
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-013-0025-0

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Objective

Study design and setting

Participants

Main outcome measure

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2014

Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction with Diabetes Management Provided by Clinical Pharmacists in the Patient-Centered Medical Home

Insulin Administration and the Impacts of Forgetting a Dose

Validity and Reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument

An Introduction to Item Response Theory for Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement

Quality of Life in Organ Transplant Recipients Participating in an Online Transplant Community

Patients’ Experience and Perception of Hospital-Treated Clostridium difficile Infections: a Qualitative Study