patient practitioner relationship Flashcards
what are the 3 example studies
mckinstry and wang
mckinlay
robinson and west
aim of mckinstry and wangs study
how acceptable patients found different styles of doctors’ dress and whether they felt that a doctor’s style influenced their respect for their opinion
results of mckinstry and wangs study
traditionally dressed images received higher preference ratings than casually dressed ones esp for older and professional class patients
evaluation of mckinstry and wangs study
strengths:
. showed importance of appearance and first impressions in developing confidence in doctors
R - consistency and reliability (same male and female used)
weaknesses:
E - lacks ecological validity (use of pictures and not real people)
G - sampling issues (does in western europe, africa ect?)
aim of mckinlays study
to investigate the comprehension of medical terms by a sample of lower class women in scotland in a maternity ward
why did mckinlay (medical terms) carry out the study
medical language makes health workers look more knowledgeable and keeps conversations brief because women are afraid to ask questions without looking stupid
results of mckinlays study
on average each of the terms were understood by less than 40% women
evaluation of mckinlays study
G - not generalisable (only used women and maternity ward no other setting)
A - useful (will help improve communication between health workers and patients)
V - ecological validity (real terms in real setting)
E - unethical (disrupting health service for survey)
aim of robinson and wests study
to see if patients are more likely to disclose info about symptoms and undesirable behaviours of STD (e.g. no of sexual partners) through computer or face to face with doctor
results of robinson and wests study
patients are less worried about social judgements with a computer, they admitted having more
sexual partners and revealed more symptoms
evaluation of robinson and wests study
strengths:
V- carried out in a real life setting (clinic) meaning the study has high ecological validity and the results can be generalised beyond the research setting.
weaknesses:
G- only carried out in one clinic with a small sample so caution should be used when generalising the results to other patients/settings.
type 1 error in diagnosis
false positive (saying they’re ill but they’re not)
type 2 error in diagnosis
false negative (saying they’re fine but they’re ill)
jargon
special words used by a profession that are hard for others to understand
doctor centred consultation style
closed questions
straight to the point
focus on main problem not others