Perceptions of physiciansʼ interpersonal skills

DiBartola, Leesa M.; Kanter, Steven L.

doi:10.1097/00001888-199707000-00005

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rater: observer or peer/group member. 33 of the selected studies used more than one type of perspective or method to study empathy in medicine [25,26,37,41,[57][58][59][60]64,65,92,[98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105]107,[109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121]. From a methodological perspective, it is worth noting that over half of these studies indicate that the levels of empathy measured depends on both the perspective and the method used (see [25,26,37,[57][58][59][60]98,103,104,107,[109][110][111][112]…”

Section: Not Described Not Describedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Empirical research on empathy in medicine—A critical review

Pedersen

2009

Patient Education and Counseling

247

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Not Described Not Describedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…using one or more implicit measures of empathy) (see e.g. [25,26,37,41,[57][58][59][98][99][100]118]). …”

Section: Not Described Not Describedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical research on empathy in medicine—A critical review

Pedersen

2009

Patient Education and Counseling

247

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychometric refinement of an outpatient, visit‐specific satisfaction with doctor questionnaire

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring patient's satisfaction with their physician is gaining interest but requires a questionnaire that is valid, reliable and acceptable to patients. We previously published a self-administered visit-specific satisfaction with physician questionnaire for cancer patients. Eighty outpatients at a Canadian Cancer Center completed the Princess Margaret Hospital Patient Satisfaction with Doctor Questionnaire and the FACT-G questionnaires along with demographic information just after clinic visit and again 3-5 days later. Exploratory factor analysis extracted two factors, labeled 'physician disengagement' and 'perceived support,' with average coefficient alpha values of 0.93 and 0.90. Test-retest reliability was 0.83 and 0.73, respectively, for the two factors. Confirmatory factor analysis applied to the data from 174 patients in the original study indicated excellent goodness of fit. PMH/PSQ-MD correlated moderately with FACT-G (average r=0.37, p<0.005). The PMH/PSQ-MD questionnaire is a brief, valid and reliable questionnaire that taps two complementary facets of patient satisfaction.

show abstract