General Hospital Psychiatry
Volume 32, Issue 1 , Pages 1-8, January 2010

Which is more important for outcome: the physician's or the patient's understanding of a health problem? A 2-year follow-up study in primary care☆☆

  • Lisbeth Frostholm, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • The Research Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +45 8949 4310; fax: +45 8949 4340.
  • ,
  • Eva Ørnbøl, M.S.C.

      Affiliations

    • The Research Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark
  • ,
  • Henriette Schou Hansen, M.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • The Research Unit for General Practice, University of Aarhus, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
  • ,
  • Frede Olesen, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • The Research Unit for General Practice, University of Aarhus, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
  • ,
  • John Weinman

      Affiliations

    • Unit of Psychology, Guy's King's and St. Thomas', Guy's Campus, London SE1 9RT, United Kingdom
  • ,
  • Per Fink, Dr.Med.Sc., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • The Research Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200 Aarhus, Denmark

Received 26 February 2009; accepted 13 August 2009. published online 05 October 2009.

Abstract 

Objective

We sought to examine (1) whether the patients' and the family physicians' (FPs') beliefs about the nature of a health problem predict health outcomes and (2) whether the FPs were aware of their patients' beliefs.

Methods

A 2-year follow-up study of 38 FPs and 1131 patients presenting with well-defined physical disease (n=922) or medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) (n=209) according to the FPs was conducted. Before the consultation, patients categorized their health problem as being either physical or both physical and psychological. After the consultation, the FPs judged their patients' understanding of the health problem. Outcome measures were (1) patient satisfaction (seven-item Patient Satisfaction Consultation Questionnaire), (2) self-perceived mental and physical health (component summaries of the Medical Outcome Study's Short Form: SF-36) and (3) health care use extracted from patient registers.

Main results

Patients with MUS according to the FPs and patients who believed that the nature of their health problem was both physical and psychological had higher health care use and worse self-rated health than patients in cases where both the FP and the patient had a physical understanding. Patients presenting MUS were more dissatisfied with the consultation than patients with well-defined physical disease.

Overall, the FPs' perceptions of their patients' understanding were accurate in 82% of the consultations, but when the patients had a both physical and psychological understanding of their health problem, the FPs were right in only 26% of the consultations.

Conclusions

Both FPs' diagnoses and patients' beliefs predict important health outcomes such as patient satisfaction, use of health care and self-rated health.

Keywords: Primary care, Illness beliefs, Medically unexplained symptoms, Patient satisfaction, PSCQ-7, SF-36, Health care utilization

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 The study has been supported by grants from the Danish Medical Research Council (Grant 2028-00-0007) and the Health Service of Aarhus County (Project No. 0871). The funding sources had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the paper or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

☆☆ Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board.

 We declare that there are no conflicts of interest from any of the contributing authors.

PII: S0163-8343(09)00170-4

doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2009.08.004

General Hospital Psychiatry
Volume 32, Issue 1 , Pages 1-8, January 2010