Interpersonal trust in doctor-patient relation: Evidence from dyadic analysis and association with quality of dyadic communication

Petrocchi, Serena; Iannello, Paola; Lecciso, Flavia; Levante, Annalisa; Antonietti, Markus; Schulz, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112391

Cited by 83 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The outcomes of the systematic search and the results of the evaluation of the psychometric properties, through the application of the COSMIN criteria, may guide researchers and clinicians in their selection of one (or more) instrument(s), according to their specific purposes. A critical and reasoned choice of a measure combined with the good communication between clinical and patients [88] could allow for defining systematic screening procedure on general population. This is the first step for early identification of risk of ASD, which, in turn, may lead to a timely diagnosis and ultimately to better outcomes for children [10,17,18] and families [89].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of Level 1 and Level 2 Screening Tools for Autism Spectrum Disorders in Toddlers

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study provides a systematic review of level 1 and level 2 screening tools for the early detection of autism under 24 months of age and an evaluation of the psychometric and measurement properties of their studies. Methods: Seven databases (e.g., Scopus, EBSCOhost Research Database) were screened and experts in the autism spectrum disorders (ASD) field were questioned; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and Consensus-based Standard for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist were applied. Results: the study included 52 papers and 16 measures; most of them were questionnaires, and the Modified-CHecklist for Autism in Toddler (M-CHAT) was the most extensively tested. The measures’ strengths (analytical evaluation of methodological quality according to COSMIN) and limitations (in term of Negative Predictive Value, Positive Predictive Value, sensitivity, and specificity) were described; the quality of the studies, assessed with the application of the COSMIN checklist, highlighted the necessity of further validation studies for all the measures. According to COSMIN results, the M-CHAT, First Years Inventory (FYI), and Quantitative-CHecklist for Autism in Toddler (Q-CHAT) seem to be promising measures that may be applied systematically by health professionals in the future.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of Level 1 and Level 2 Screening Tools for Autism Spectrum Disorders in Toddlers

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This consideration leads to our fourth and final consideration. The FYI and Q-CHAT, as with many other questionnaires for early identification of autism, are affected by the quality of the relationships and trust towards the physicians [ 96 , 97 ], highlighting the importance of the parent-pediatrician relationship. If parents trust their pediatrician, they would likely be more willing to undergo evaluations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Criterion Validity of the First Year Inventory and the Quantitative-CHecklist for Autism in Toddlers: A Longitudinal Study

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pediatric surveillance through screening procedures is needed to detect warning signs of risk for Autism Spectrum Disorder under 24 months of age and to promote early diagnosis and treatment. The main purpose of this study is to extend the literature regarding the psychometric properties of two screening tools, the First Year Inventory (FYI) and the Quantitative-CHecklist for Autism in Toddler (Q-CHAT), testing their criterion validity. They were administered during a three-wave approach involving the general population. At T1, 657 children were tested with the FYI and 36 of them were found to be at risk. At T2, 545 were tested with the Q-CHAT and 29 of them were found to be at risk. At T3, 12 out of the 36 children with a high score on the FYI and 11 out of the 29 children with a high score on the Q-CHAT were compared to 15 typically developing children. The criterion validity was tested considering the severity of the autistic symptoms, emotional/behavioral problems, and limited global functioning as criteria. Accuracy parameters were also calculated. Furthermore, we investigated which dimension of each questionnaire better predicted the aforementioned criterion. The results corroborated the hypotheses and confirmed the criterion validity of FYI and Q-CHAT.

show abstract

“…Previous explorations of the nature of patient-therapist relationships have indicated an existence of non-independency, as the clinical encounters contain multiple persons embedded within a social context (Kenny et al, 2006). Such a context includes interpersonal relationships, suggesting the individual experiences of the participants mutually reinforcing and non-independent of each other (Petrocchi et al, 2019). We suggest that a higher level of agreement on how to perform decisional processes represents a better foundation for good treatment decisions, which facilitate patient compliance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Discrepancy in Ratings of Shared Decision Making Between Patients and Health Professionals: A Cross Sectional Study in Mental Health Care

Drivenes

Haaland

Hauge³

et al. 2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A defined goal in mental health care is to increase the opportunities for patients to more actively participate in their treatment. This goal includes integrating aspects of user empowerment and shared decision-making (SDM) into treatment courses. To achieve this goal, more knowledge is needed about how patients and therapists perceive this integration. Objective: To explore patient experiences of SDM, to describe differences between patient and therapist experiences, and to identify patient factors that might reduce SDM experiences for patients compared to the experiences of their therapists. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 992 patients that had appointments with 267 therapists at Sørlandet Hospital, Division of Mental Health during a 1-week period. Both patients and therapists completed the CollaboRATE questionnaire, which was used to rate SDM experiences. Patients reported demographic and treatment-related information. Therapists provided clinical information. Results: The analysis included 953 patient-therapist responder pairs that completed the CollaboRATE questionnaire. The mean SDM score was 80.7 (SD 20.8) among patients, and 86.6 (SD 12.1) among therapists. Females and patients that did not use medication for mental health disorders reported higher SDM scores than males and patients that used psychiatric medications (83.3 vs. 77.7; p < 0.001 and 82.6 vs. 79.8; p = 0.03, respectively). Patients with diagnoses involving psychotic symptoms reported lower SDM scores than all the other patients (66.8 vs. 82.3; p < 0.001). The probability that a patient would report lower SDM scores than their therapist was highest among patients that received involuntary treatment (OR 3.2, p = 0.02), patients with treatment durations longer than 2.2 years (OR 1.9, p = 0.001), and patients that required day care or in-patient care (OR 3.2, p = 0.01 and OR 3.2, p < 0.001, respectively).

show abstract

Interpersonal trust in doctor-patient relation: Evidence from dyadic analysis and association with quality of dyadic communication

Cited by 83 publications

References 46 publications

Systematic Review of Level 1 and Level 2 Screening Tools for Autism Spectrum Disorders in Toddlers

Systematic Review of Level 1 and Level 2 Screening Tools for Autism Spectrum Disorders in Toddlers

The Criterion Validity of the First Year Inventory and the Quantitative-CHecklist for Autism in Toddlers: A Longitudinal Study

Discrepancy in Ratings of Shared Decision Making Between Patients and Health Professionals: A Cross Sectional Study in Mental Health Care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About