Exploration of aspects of communication between doctors and patients in anamnesis, better prognosis and adherence to treatment: a systematic review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/hl202454Keywords:
Communication, Physician, Patient, Effective Relationship, AnamnesisAbstract
Introduction: there is much talk about doctor-patient communication and its importance, but when is it really effective? For doctor-patient communication to be effective it must involve not only a biomedical vision, i.e. real medical knowledge, but much more than that, it requires a multidimensional vision, in an individualized and humanized way. From this perspective and taking into account the complexity that this represents, it is particularly important to analyze the elements involved in the medical consultation, as well as the impact they will have on the anamnesis and adherence to treatment on the part of the patients. The doctor-patient relationship represents a fundamental aspect in the process of health care, treatment of the disease and recovery of health, deserving special interest in establishing effects, such as adherence to treatments and therapies, aimed at restoring health. Through this established link, it is possible to achieve a better anamnesis, establishing an adequate and humanized behavior, which favors an effective diagnosis. However, the patient's cooperation is necessary, communicating and expressing what he/she feels. Effective communication between physician and patient will lead to positive and satisfactory results for both parties.
Method: an exhaustive electronic search of the relevant literature on the factors involved in good patient-physician communication was performed through medical databases as well as reference search engines such as Pubmed, Cochrane, mesh broweser, Google Scholar, scielo, bireme. The following keywords and MeSH terms were used: "doctor patient relationship" "effective communication" "medical education", "communication barriers", "clinical skills" "empathy". Randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified without considering publication status, reported results, last ten years of publication and with language restriction to English, Spanish and Portuguese.
Results: 12 systematic review and meta-analysis papers published between 2015 - 2022, which met the established inclusion criteria, were included.
Conclusions: Effective communication between physicians and patients plays a crucial role in promoting successful treatment and improving patient adherence. In addition, implementing communication training programs during medical school can help prepare future physicians to interact more effectively with patients
References
1. Nildo Alves Batista et al. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5271v43suplemento1-20190118 Aprendizagem da Empatia na Relação Médico-Paciente: um Olhar Qualitativo entre Estudantes do Internato de Escolas Médicas do Nordeste do Brasil
2. Moreira Filho José Roberto –relação medico paciente http://idisa.org.br/img/File/RelacaoMedicopaciente.pdf
3. Torres Hernández Isaías. Modelos de relación médico paciente https://medfam.fmposgrado.unam.mx/wpcontent/uploads/2023/07/21jun23-MODELOS-DE-RMPy-ACP.pdf
4. Lazzaro-Salazar Mariana, Pujol-Cols Lucas. Instrumentos estandarizados para medir la relación médico-paciente: una revisión sistemática de la literatura internacional e iberoamericana. Rev. méd. Chile [Internet]. 2022 Abr [citado 2023 Oct 26] ; 150( 4 ): 512-531. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872022000400512.
5. Steiner-Hofbauer V, Schrank B, Holzinger A. What is a good doctor? Wien Med Wochenschr. 2018 Nov;168(1516):398-405. doi: 10.1007/s10354-017-0597-8. Epub 2017 Sep 13. PMID: 28905272; PMCID: PMC6223733.
6. Zolnierek KB, Dimatteo MR. Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2009;47(8):826-34. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819a5acc.
7. Semiología Médica. Fisiopatología, Semiotecnia y Propedéutica». Enseñanza – aprendizaje centrada en la persona. Autores: Horacio A. Argente, Marcelo E. Álvarez , 2° Edición. 2013.
8. Ruiz-Lurdury, R. A., Torres-Torres, L. I., & VelandiaNovoa, K. L. (2017). Relación médico-paciente y adherencia al tratamiento. Ciencia y Humanismo en la
Salud, 4(1), 29-37. http://revista.medicina.uady.mx
9. Hemmerdinger JM, Stoddart SD, Lilford RJ. A systematic review of tests of empathy in medicine. BMC Med Educ. 2007 Jul 25;7:24. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-7-24. PMID: 17651477; PMCID: PMC1988794.
10. Cardoso Garnier Bucker L., Soares Franco L., Olívia Gomes Cunha Leão M., da Rocha Oliveira M., Miranda Higino S., Ribeiro Barreto Mello D., & Maria Vitarelli A. (2018). COMUNICAÇÃO ACESSIVEL NA RELAÇÃO MÉDICO-PACIENTE DURANTE A ANAMNESES. Revista Interdisciplinaria Pensamiento Científico, 4 (1). Obtenido de http://reinpec.cc/index.php/reinpec/article/view/191
11. Riedl D, Schüßler G. The Influence of Doctor-Patient Communication on Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2017 Jun;63(2):131-150. 10.13109/zptm.2017.63.2.131.
12. Röttele N, Schöpf-Lazzarino AC, Becker S, Körner M, Boeker M, Wirtz MA. Agreement of physician and patient ratings of communication in medical encounters: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interrater agreement. Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Oct;103(10):18731882. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.04.002.
13. Roberts BW, Trzeciak CJ, Puri NK, Mazzarelli AJ, Trzeciak S. Racial and socioeconomic disparities in patient experience of clinician empathy: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2020 Jun 28; 10(6):e034247. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019034247.
14. Ghaffarifar S, Ghofranipour F, Ahmadi F, Khoshbaten M. Barriers to Effective Doctor-Patient Relationship Based on PRECEDE PROCEED Model. Glob J Health Sci. 2015 Mar 25;7(6):24-32. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v7n6p24. PMID:
26153160; PMCID: PMC4803924.
14. Patel S, Pelletier-Bui A, Smith S, Roberts MB, Kilgannon H, Trzeciak S, Roberts BW. Curricula for empathy and compassion training in medical education: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2019 Aug 22;14(8):e0221412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221412.
PMID: 31437225; PMCID: PMC6705835.
15. Howick J, Moscrop A, Mebius A, Fanshawe TR, Lewith G, Bishop FL, Mistiaen P, Roberts NW, Dieninytė E, Hu XY, Aveyard P, Onakpoya IJ. Effects of empathic and positive communication in healthcare consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J R Soc Med. 2018 Jul;111(7):240-252. doi: 10.1177/0141076818769477. Epub 2018 Apr 19. Erratum in: J R Soc Med. 2018 Oct;111(10):383. PMID: 29672201; PMCID: PMC6047264.
16. Fernandes IAM, Menezes ROA, Rego G. EMPATIA: A Guide for Communicating the Diagnosis of Neuromuscular Diseases. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Aug 9;19(16):9792. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19169792.
17. Tang C, Wang A, Yan J. Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure-process-outcome model. Health Expect. 2022 Aug;25(4):1254-1268. doi: 10.1111/hex.13541. Epub 2022 Jun 5. PMID: 35662361; PMCID: PMC9327808.
18. Mishra A, Read SH, Rochon PA. Influence of Physician Sex and Gender on Prescribing Practices Among Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 Dec;68(12):2764-2767. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16851. Epub 2020 Oct 12. PMID: 33047303.
21. Johnson CG, Schwartz R, Tierney AA, Zionts DL, . . Zulman DM, Haverfield MC, Shaw JG, Brown Safaeinili N, Fischer M, Thadaney Israni S, Asch SM, Verghese A. Practices to Foster Physician Presence and Connection With Patients in the Clinical Encounter. JAMA. 10.1001/jama.2019.19003. Erratum in: JAMA. 2020 Mar 2020 Jan 7;323(1):70-81.
22. Van der Velden NCA, Meijers MC, Han PKJ, van Laarhoven HWM, Smets EMA, Henselmans I. The Effect of Prognostic Communication on Patient Outcomes in Palliative Cancer Care: a Systematic Review. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2020 Apr 23;21(5):40. doi: 10.1007/s11864-020-00742-y.
23. Forguione-Pérez VP. Comunicación entre médico y paciente: más allá de una consulta, un proceso educativo. MÉD.UIS. 2015;28(1):7-13.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Marcia Andrea Ledo Barros , Maria Romina Leardi (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
