医疗保健用户对全科实践的评价——一项对45至70岁丹麦男性的调查。

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
BJGP Open Pub Date : 2025-01-03 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0153
Søren Birkeland, Sören Möller
{"title":"医疗保健用户对全科实践的评价——一项对45至70岁丹麦男性的调查。","authors":"Søren Birkeland, Sören Möller","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Knowledge about healthcare users' evaluation of general practice is relatively limited.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We aimed to investigate evaluations in Danish men of general practice healthcare and of different aspects of general practitioners' (GPs) communication with patients.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Secondary analyses of data from a web-based survey in 6756 Danish men aged 45-70 years (30% response rate) using municipality-level information from registries, self-reported sociodemographic data, personality characteristics, and five-point Likert scale evaluations of healthcare and communication in general practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A large majority of participants agreed (<i>n</i>=4420, 65%) or strongly agreed (<i>n</i>=1653, 24%) that their GP treatment had been \"almost perfect\", with slightly fewer (<i>n</i>=4205, 63%) responding that their GP was good at showing consideration for them. The latter item was, however, reversed, making comparisons more difficult and all differences were small. Older healthcare users evaluated healthcare higher (<i>P</i><0.01) and higher scores on the extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness personality dimensions generally were associated with higher evaluation scores (<i>P</i><0.01) while the opposite tended to be true for respondents with higher neuroticism scores (<i>P</i>=0.002). When not controlling for multiplicity, participants in rural area tended to evaluate the explanation of medical procedures with lower scores (<i>P</i>=0.014) and participants with cerebrovascular disease (<i>P</i>=0.003) and those residing in higher tax income area (<i>P</i>=0.001) tended to generally evaluate GP care less positively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite an overall high evaluation of GP care, evaluations may vary, including among different groups of healthcare users.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthcare users' evaluation of general practice - a survey among Danish men aged 45 to 70 years.\",\"authors\":\"Søren Birkeland, Sören Möller\",\"doi\":\"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0153\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Knowledge about healthcare users' evaluation of general practice is relatively limited.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We aimed to investigate evaluations in Danish men of general practice healthcare and of different aspects of general practitioners' (GPs) communication with patients.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Secondary analyses of data from a web-based survey in 6756 Danish men aged 45-70 years (30% response rate) using municipality-level information from registries, self-reported sociodemographic data, personality characteristics, and five-point Likert scale evaluations of healthcare and communication in general practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A large majority of participants agreed (<i>n</i>=4420, 65%) or strongly agreed (<i>n</i>=1653, 24%) that their GP treatment had been \\\"almost perfect\\\", with slightly fewer (<i>n</i>=4205, 63%) responding that their GP was good at showing consideration for them. The latter item was, however, reversed, making comparisons more difficult and all differences were small. Older healthcare users evaluated healthcare higher (<i>P</i><0.01) and higher scores on the extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness personality dimensions generally were associated with higher evaluation scores (<i>P</i><0.01) while the opposite tended to be true for respondents with higher neuroticism scores (<i>P</i>=0.002). When not controlling for multiplicity, participants in rural area tended to evaluate the explanation of medical procedures with lower scores (<i>P</i>=0.014) and participants with cerebrovascular disease (<i>P</i>=0.003) and those residing in higher tax income area (<i>P</i>=0.001) tended to generally evaluate GP care less positively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite an overall high evaluation of GP care, evaluations may vary, including among different groups of healthcare users.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36541,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJGP Open\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJGP Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0153\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0153","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:关于医疗保健用户对全科实践的评价的知识相对有限。目的:我们的目的是调查评估丹麦男性的全科医生保健和全科医生(全科医生)与患者沟通的不同方面。设计与设置:对6756名45-70岁丹麦男性(30%回复率)的网络调查数据进行二次分析,使用市政一级的登记信息、自我报告的社会人口统计数据、个性特征和一般医疗保健和沟通的五点李克特量表评估。结果:绝大多数参与者同意(n=4420, 65%)或强烈同意(n=1653, 24%)他们的全科医生治疗“几乎完美”,略少(n=4205, 63%)回应他们的全科医生善于为他们考虑。然而,后一项是相反的,使得比较更加困难,所有的差异都很小。老年医疗保健用户对医疗保健的评价较高(PPP=0.002)。在未控制多重性的情况下,农村被试对医疗程序解释的评价得分较低(P=0.014),脑血管疾病被试(P=0.003)和高税收地区被试(P=0.001)对全科医生护理的评价普遍较低。结论:尽管对全科医生护理的总体评价很高,但评价可能会有所不同,包括在不同的医疗保健使用者群体中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Healthcare users' evaluation of general practice - a survey among Danish men aged 45 to 70 years.

Background: Knowledge about healthcare users' evaluation of general practice is relatively limited.

Aim: We aimed to investigate evaluations in Danish men of general practice healthcare and of different aspects of general practitioners' (GPs) communication with patients.

Design & setting: Secondary analyses of data from a web-based survey in 6756 Danish men aged 45-70 years (30% response rate) using municipality-level information from registries, self-reported sociodemographic data, personality characteristics, and five-point Likert scale evaluations of healthcare and communication in general practice.

Results: A large majority of participants agreed (n=4420, 65%) or strongly agreed (n=1653, 24%) that their GP treatment had been "almost perfect", with slightly fewer (n=4205, 63%) responding that their GP was good at showing consideration for them. The latter item was, however, reversed, making comparisons more difficult and all differences were small. Older healthcare users evaluated healthcare higher (P<0.01) and higher scores on the extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness personality dimensions generally were associated with higher evaluation scores (P<0.01) while the opposite tended to be true for respondents with higher neuroticism scores (P=0.002). When not controlling for multiplicity, participants in rural area tended to evaluate the explanation of medical procedures with lower scores (P=0.014) and participants with cerebrovascular disease (P=0.003) and those residing in higher tax income area (P=0.001) tended to generally evaluate GP care less positively.

Conclusion: Despite an overall high evaluation of GP care, evaluations may vary, including among different groups of healthcare users.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信