英国国家临床沟通指南对成年人对医生和治疗承诺的看法的影响。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Health Communication Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-11 DOI:10.1080/10410236.2025.2458647
Andrew Prestwich, Chloe Flanagan, Sania Khan
{"title":"英国国家临床沟通指南对成年人对医生和治疗承诺的看法的影响。","authors":"Andrew Prestwich, Chloe Flanagan, Sania Khan","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2025.2458647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>UK national guidelines recommend how healthcare professionals should communicate with patients. However, the impact of following, or violating, these guidelines on how much the healthcare professional is respected, liked, or trusted, and the mechanisms underpinning, and consequences of, these perceptions have not been tested. To address these gaps, two UK-based, pre-registered studies using within-subjects designs required participants to rate how much they respect, like and trust general practitioners (GPs), as well as how competent, assertive, moral, and warm they are, and their commitment to adhere to their advice. After these baseline assessments, participants were presented with a series of vignettes where hypothetical GPs violated (Study 1, <i>N</i> = 329, and Study 2, <i>N</i> = 329) and followed (Study 2 only) recommended communication guidelines. Violations reduced respect for GPs more than liking and liking more than trust. Following communication guidelines increased liking for GPs the most followed by trust and respect the least. Violations of, and following, communication guidelines impacted (reduced/increased, respectively) patients' commitment to treatment adherence via trust, primarily, as well as respect. Summarizing information and checking patients have understood the most important information impacted how GPs were evaluated more than the other tested communication recommendations, suggesting this specific recommendation could be prioritized over the other tested recommendations. Furthermore, by impacting how much patients trust and, to a lesser extent, respect their GP, how committed patients are to following treatment advice could be affected by how GPs communicate with their patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"2417-2428"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of UK National Clinical Communication Guidelines on Adults' Perceptions of Doctors and Treatment Commitment.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Prestwich, Chloe Flanagan, Sania Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10410236.2025.2458647\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>UK national guidelines recommend how healthcare professionals should communicate with patients. However, the impact of following, or violating, these guidelines on how much the healthcare professional is respected, liked, or trusted, and the mechanisms underpinning, and consequences of, these perceptions have not been tested. To address these gaps, two UK-based, pre-registered studies using within-subjects designs required participants to rate how much they respect, like and trust general practitioners (GPs), as well as how competent, assertive, moral, and warm they are, and their commitment to adhere to their advice. After these baseline assessments, participants were presented with a series of vignettes where hypothetical GPs violated (Study 1, <i>N</i> = 329, and Study 2, <i>N</i> = 329) and followed (Study 2 only) recommended communication guidelines. Violations reduced respect for GPs more than liking and liking more than trust. Following communication guidelines increased liking for GPs the most followed by trust and respect the least. Violations of, and following, communication guidelines impacted (reduced/increased, respectively) patients' commitment to treatment adherence via trust, primarily, as well as respect. Summarizing information and checking patients have understood the most important information impacted how GPs were evaluated more than the other tested communication recommendations, suggesting this specific recommendation could be prioritized over the other tested recommendations. Furthermore, by impacting how much patients trust and, to a lesser extent, respect their GP, how committed patients are to following treatment advice could be affected by how GPs communicate with their patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12889,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Communication\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2417-2428\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2458647\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2458647","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英国国家指南建议医疗保健专业人员应如何与患者沟通。然而,遵循或违反这些指导方针对医疗保健专业人员受到尊重、喜欢或信任的程度的影响,以及这些观念的基础机制和后果,尚未经过测试。为了解决这些差距,两项基于英国的预先注册的研究使用了受试者内部设计,要求参与者评估他们对全科医生(gp)的尊重、喜欢和信任程度,以及他们的能力、自信、道德和热情程度,以及他们遵守建议的承诺。在这些基线评估之后,向参与者展示了一系列的小插曲,其中假设的全科医生违反了(研究1,N = 329,研究2,N = 329),并遵循了(仅研究2)推荐的沟通指南。违规行为比喜欢更能降低对全科医生的尊重,喜欢比信任更能降低对全科医生的尊重。遵循沟通准则增加了对全科医生的喜爱程度,其次是信任和尊重。违反和遵循沟通准则会影响(分别减少/增加)患者通过信任和尊重对治疗依从性的承诺。总结信息并检查患者是否理解了最重要的信息,这些信息对全科医生的评估影响大于其他已测试的沟通建议,这表明这一具体建议可以优先于其他已测试的建议。此外,通过影响患者对全科医生的信任程度,以及在较小程度上尊重他们的全科医生,病人遵守治疗建议的承诺程度可能会受到全科医生与患者沟通方式的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of UK National Clinical Communication Guidelines on Adults' Perceptions of Doctors and Treatment Commitment.

UK national guidelines recommend how healthcare professionals should communicate with patients. However, the impact of following, or violating, these guidelines on how much the healthcare professional is respected, liked, or trusted, and the mechanisms underpinning, and consequences of, these perceptions have not been tested. To address these gaps, two UK-based, pre-registered studies using within-subjects designs required participants to rate how much they respect, like and trust general practitioners (GPs), as well as how competent, assertive, moral, and warm they are, and their commitment to adhere to their advice. After these baseline assessments, participants were presented with a series of vignettes where hypothetical GPs violated (Study 1, N = 329, and Study 2, N = 329) and followed (Study 2 only) recommended communication guidelines. Violations reduced respect for GPs more than liking and liking more than trust. Following communication guidelines increased liking for GPs the most followed by trust and respect the least. Violations of, and following, communication guidelines impacted (reduced/increased, respectively) patients' commitment to treatment adherence via trust, primarily, as well as respect. Summarizing information and checking patients have understood the most important information impacted how GPs were evaluated more than the other tested communication recommendations, suggesting this specific recommendation could be prioritized over the other tested recommendations. Furthermore, by impacting how much patients trust and, to a lesser extent, respect their GP, how committed patients are to following treatment advice could be affected by how GPs communicate with their patients.

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
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信