Doctor and patient perceptions of the level of doctor explanation and quality of patient–doctor communication

Abstract

A measure that classifies patient-doctor pairs into doctor-better and the other situations might be effective for evaluating the quality of patient-doctor communication. As this is a new approach to evaluating patient-doctor communication, more studies are necessary to verify these findings.

Patient Preferences in Selecting a Dentist: Survey Results from the Urban Population of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

“…23 Studies have shown that the physician-patient communication has a significant influence on the outcome of patient care, including patient satisfaction, compliance with treatment, recall and understanding of medical information, and coping with disease. 24,25 Communication could be a key factor for choosing a Saudi as a dentist.…”

Does questionnaire-based patient feedback reflect the important qualities of clinical consultations? Context, benefits and risks

“…On a practical level, doctors' and patients' had similar views of a good consultation, identifying listening and explaining behaviours which have previously been found to be important [70,71,72,73]. Agreement on what constitutes a good interaction may be positive for patient satisfaction, understanding and adherence [74,75,76], although attitudes towards specific behaviours may differ [77], and personality differences may confound perceptions of, and preferences for, different behaviours [78,79 Interview questions intended to identify appropriate feedback content also discovered…”

Improving doctor-patient communication: content validity examination of a novel urinary system-simulating physical model

“…In the picture-based group, the surgeons were asked to use the model-design pictures to conduct communication without the model. The communication content of the groups referenced the research of Hagihara and Tarumi16 and primarily included, 1) the medical testing and examination; 2) the cause and diagnosis; 3) the treatment and its effects; 4) the side effect and treatment risks; and 5) the prognosis of the disease and patient precautions: the time for communicating was 20 min. Each season’s study continued until the research task was accomplished with 60 patients.…”