Nationwide survey of patients’ and doctors’ perceptions of what is needed in doctor - patient communication in a Southeast Asian context

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-28191/v1

PDF

Research article

Nationwide survey of patients’ and doctors’ perceptions of what is needed in doctor - patient communication in a Southeast Asian context

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-28191/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 14 Oct, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Health Services Research →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background Asian countries are trying to apply the partnership model in doctor-patient communication that has been effectively applied in Western countries. The study aimed to investigate whether communication model used in the Western world are appropriate in Southeast Asia and to identify key items in doctor-patient communication that should be included in a doctor-patient communication model for training in Vietnam (a Southeast Asian country).

Methods In six provinces, collaborating medical schools collected data from 480 patients interviewed using a structured guideline after a consultation session and from 473 doctors using a cross-sectional survey on how they conduct consultation sessions with patients. Data collection tools covered a list of communication skills based on Western models, adapted to fit with local legislation.

Results Both patients and doctors considered most elements in the list necessary for good doctor-patient communication. Both also felt that while actual communication was generally good, there was also room for improvements. Furthermore, the doctors had higher expectations than the patients. Four items in the Western model for doctor-patient communication, all promoting the partnership relation between them, appeared to have lower priority for both patients and doctors in Vietnam.

Conclusion The communication model used in the Western world could be applied in Vietnam with minor adaptations. Increasing patients’ understanding of their partner role needs to be considered. The implications for medical training in universities are to focus first on the key skills perceived as needed to be strengthened by both doctors and patients. In the longer term, all of these items should be included in the training to prepare for the future.

Health Policy

Health Economics & Outcomes Research

doctor-patient communication

partnership model

perception

culture

Asia

training

Vietnam

Doctor-patient communication is one of the most essential dynamics in health care, affecting the course of patient care and patient satisfaction[1–5]. Although technical skills may receive more attention in physician training, communication plays an essential role in practice.

A standard communication structure for a medical interview is described in the Calgary-Cambridge Observation Guide [2], which has been an effective model for communication skills in medical interviews and has strongly influenced the development of medical communication skills training programs [6, 7]. In this model, the partnership model, the patient is actively involved in the consultation, and doctor and patient are equal [8]. The partnership model has been effectively applied in Western countries. Some Asian countries are trying to move their doctor-patient communication model toward this partnership model; however, application of a Western model to Asian communities may require adaptation of the model [9–12].

The Western communication model improves patient care and patient satisfaction. Patient participation in medical encounters depends on a complex interplay of influencing factors, including ethnicity [11, 13–16]. Hofstede, a pioneering researcher on cross-cultural communication and organization, who developed the Cultural Dimensions Theory and Country Comparison Tool [17] reported notable differences between Western and Asian cultures. Using this tool, Vietnam scores highest on the dimension “Power distance” and lowest on the dimension “Individualism,” showing that Vietnamese people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place without further justification, and pay less attention to the individual than to the group. In contrast, in Western countries the “Individualism” score is higher than “Power distance,” meaning that equal respect and individual rights are expected and deserved [18].

In a strongly hierarchical society, the respect for someone who is perceived to be of higher social status strongly influences communication [19]. Doctors are considered to have a higher position than their patients and they recognize that [19, 20]. In addition, patients accept their lower social position; they do not have expectations beyond that [18], and do not think of doctors as their partners [10].

A society with a low score on individualism is a collectivist society where there is a high preference for a strongly defined social framework in which individuals are expected to conform to the ideals of the society [18]. In collectivist societies, self-control is a core value. Vietnamese people tend to be reserved and modest; emotions are typically kept to oneself, whereas expressions of disagreement that may irritate or offend are avoided [20] With such cultural characteristics, applying the partnership communication model in Vietnam may require compromise. For example, a study in Sri Lanka found that fewer than 50% of patients expected doctors to introduce themselves, to thank them, or to discuss available treatment options with them [9].

In Vietnam, there is not yet a list of required clinical communication skills for medical doctors. The competency standards for general practitioners state: “General practitioners shall have the ability to communicate effectively with patients, their family and the community,” and note two related standards: “Have the ability to create a friendly, cooperative and trustful relationship with patients, their family and the community,” and “Effective communication.” These two standards have nine criteria which reflect the partnership model in doctor-patient communication [21].

There are also Government regulations on communication in medical facilities [22] which guide activities of health workers and include most but not all standard activities in doctor-patient communication. The regulations reflect the partnership model of doctor-patient communication, with the general regulation: “Communication in medical examination and treatment facilities is expressed verbally and by cultural attitudes and behaviors; visiting people are the consumers of services of medical examination and treatment facilities and are treated equally and politely.” Implementing these standards and regulation in training for doctor-patient communication is a challenge in Vietnam, because of the lack of a formal Vietnamese doctor-patient communication model.

Based on the government regulations on communication in medical facilities and the available material on doctor-patient communication (mostly from Western countries), each university had developed its training and assessment material in its specific way. A typical Vietnamese doctor-patient communication model is needed to guide and standardize such training throughout the country.

Doctor and patient are both partners in the communication. When investigating which parts of the Western communication model may be applicable, it is useful to explore both the patients' expectations and the doctors’ willingness and capacity to meet those expectations. Gender, age, employment, setting, and time available for the consultation may also influence patients' expectations and satisfaction [10, 12, 19, 23–26]. Because these factors may influence the communication that we want to assess, we recorded these potentially confounding variables as well, to support interpretation of the results.

This study aimed to identify essential items in communication that doctors should perform during a consultation; the results will act as a guide for training. Working towards an appropriate model, we developed a standard tool that listed communication skills, based on tools used for assessment of communication in Western medical schools, and adapted to be consistent with local legislation. Using this tool, we investigated the perceptions and expectations of patients and doctors on the communication between them. Since patients are the customers of the service, in this study, we paid attention to patients’ perceptions, and explored factors that potentially affect patients’ perceptions and expectations as well as items related to their satisfaction. This aimed to provide information to trainers for selecting key items to be included in doctor-patient communication training.

The doctor has a crucial role as a partner in the communication. If doctors and patients have similar expectations about communication during their encounter, the training needs would be clearer for Vietnamese medical schools. We compared the expectations of patients and doctors to identify any differences that could be addressed during doctors’ training. We expected that doctors and patients would value most of activities from the Western doctor-patient communication model, but that selected activities related to building a relationship (but not directly related to the patient’s health) may have lower priority for patients and/or doctors.

Study design

The data were collected using structured interviews with 480 patients and a cross-sectional survey among 473 doctors in six Vietnamese cities, involving six of the eight oldest medical schools in Vietnam. To reduce bias caused by patients’ life experience, we interviewed patients about the consultation they had just finished, not doctor-patient communication in general. Because we invited doctors to complete the questionnaire in their available time, we could only ask them about doctor-patient communication in general. The answers from patients and doctors could not, therefore, be compared directly. The data collection instruments were pre-tested in a population near a medical university. The pilot revealed that results were unreliable if patients completed the forms without guidance, because they may misunderstand the wording. Some questions were reformulated to be clearer, and the revised questionnaire was administered by interviewers who recorded patients’ responses.

Study participants and data collection process

The study aimed to employ a nationwide stratified sample of participants. Teaching staff in six medical universities in six provinces/cities with universities implemented it: two in the North, two in the Center and two in the South. One in the North and one in the South are in major cities, while the others are in rural provinces. In each province/city, we selected one city hospital and two district health centers as study sites, randomly choosing the first two district health centers and the first city/provincial hospital from a list of facilities. At each site, randomly 40 medical doctors and 40 patients were invited to participate. The doctors worked in outpatient services where they would be expected to use all the communication activities. The patients had just finished a consultation at an outpatient service. Patients and doctors received a small amount of money for their time. Six groups of four medical teaching staff interviewed the patients and they recorded the responses.

The interviewers participated in developing questionnaires and an interview guide; they were trained in a 3-hour session to use the guide correctly. Researchers interviewed patients and recorded their responses but did not probe for further qualitative information, so that information from different locations could be standardized.

Materials

Representatives from the six medical universities involved in communication skills training had collaborated during a workshop to reach consensus on a questionnaire, based on the theoretical background of Kurtz et al. and the Calgary-Cambridge Observation Guide [2, 27]. The MAAS Global checklist to assess communication skills [28] was used as a reference, as were regulations on communication from the Ministry of Health in Vietnam [22]. The tool to assess doctors’ communication was adapted to collect the experience and expectations of patients.

Doctors

Doctors were asked to complete a two-part questionnaire:

Part 1 included 22 activities that may be used by the doctor in communication with patients: Introduction (three activities), Exploration (5), Examination (3), Information (5), Discussion (3), and Closure (3). For each activity, doctors were asked first whether they usually performed it, and second, whether they thought they should perform it and would plan to in future for a better communication model. Each question had Yes and No as answer categories.

Part 2 related to demographic information. Doctors were also asked how much time they used for an average consultation and how much they would need under ideal conditions.

We used an expert panel to increase content validity and piloted the questionnaire, asking participants to give examples. The reliability of the doctors’ questionnaire using the test-retest method was 0.76 (Pearson correlation coefficient).

Patients

As described, this questionnaire served as a guide for interviews with patients. Consecutive patients were invited for interviews until 40 per hospital and 20 per health station were recruited. Nearly all (95.4%) who were invited agreed to participate. Interviews were conducted by teaching staff of local medical universities. To eliminate any hesitation to be critical, which might be thought to negatively impact their treatments, and to encourage patients to participate, the interviewers emphasized that they were not hospital staff and that patients’ responses would remain anonymous. Patients were informed of the purpose of the study and asked to give verbal consent to participate. If they agreed, information on their gender, age, and employment were recorded, as well as the level of the facility. Then patients were asked about their satisfaction with the consultation in general as well as with their communication with the doctor. Their responses were categorized as one of four choices, ranging from very unsatisfied to very satisfied. Additionally, they were asked their opinion on each item of communication on the list of activities in the questionnaire for doctors.

During pilot testing, we found that patients did not clearly understand two of the doctors’ activities on the list: item 12: "doctor asks patient about their knowledge and attitude concerning their disease before giving information" and item 16: "doctor considers patient’s reaction to information provided." Therefore, these two activities were excluded from the final question list for patients. The reliability of the interview form for patients using the test-retest method was 0.73 (Pearson correlation coefficient).

Data analysis

The data from both sets of questionnaires were first analyzed descriptively using SPSS. The categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages and compared by age group, sex, employment, or level of health facility using regression analysis. Normally or near-normally distributed variables were expressed as means with standard deviations and compared by Student's t-test. Non-normally distributed variables were reported as medians with interquartile ranges, and compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and McNemar’s test for paired nominal data. In this study, a threshold p-value of 0.05 indicates significance, and a frequency higher than 50% was considered as majority.

Ethical considerations

The patients were recruited by invitation, and most invitations (95.4%) were accepted. The interviews took place in private spaces in the hospitals. Patients were informed that they could refuse any questions or stop the interview at any time if they wished. All participants gave verbal consent to participation.

More than 98% of doctors invited to complete the survey agreed; forms were returned to the Director of Nursing in the outpatient clinic, who forwarded them to the researchers.

The research protocol was approved by the Scientific Committee of the Ho Chi Minh City University of Medicine and Pharmacy, covering both technical and ethical aspects. The relevant authorities in each health facility also agreed to host the study.

Patients’ perceptions of doctors’ communication

The vast majority of the patients reported finding their consultation satisfactory (75.2%). While one-fifth of the respondents were very satisfied (20.6%), only 4.2% were not satisfied and none was very unsatisfied. When asked about their general satisfaction with the doctors’ communication, nearly all patients were satisfied (75.6%) or very satisfied (19.2%), and no one was very unsatisfied.

The patients were then asked about a list of specific activities that may be performed by the doctor during the consultation. For each activity, patients were asked first whether their doctors had performed that activity during the consultation just completed. Then they were asked about their expectations – whether they would like or expect their doctors to perform those specific activities in future consultations.

The patients’ perceptions are presented in Table 1. The items are listed in the order they appeared on the interview form. For each activity, the percentages of patients reporting the doctor "performed during last consultation" and the percentages of patients who "expect doctor perform in future” are presented in the same row.

Table 1

Patients’ perceptions on performance and need for communication skills (N = 480)
	Activities	Performed during the last consultation	Expect to be Performed in the future
		%	%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20	Doctor greets patient Doctor introduces him/herself Doctor uses the patient’s name in communication Doctor listens attentively while patient talks Doctor expresses sympathy with patient Doctor expresses a positive and encouraging attitude towards patient’s efforts in taking care of health Doctor check whether he/she understood exactly what patient said/would like to say Doctor asks if there is anything else that patient would like to share. Doctor informs the patient what he/she is going to do Doctor explains the needs for examination/ test Doctor conducts examination in respectful manner Doctor informs patient about results of examination Doctor informs patient about diagnosis, hypothesis. Doctor informs patient about possible prognosis of the disease Doctor discusses with patient about treatment methods with advantages and disadvantages of each method Doctor summarizes what he/she and patient agreed Doctor asks if the patient has any difficulty to follow the treatment course described by the doctor Doctor asks patient to repeat main issues in treatment course Doctor asks if patient is satisfied with the consultation Doctor thanks the patient	65.6 10.4 38.4 93.3 86.0 30.2 52.9 44.6 63.3 57.3 91.9 76.9 62.9 58.5 39.4 46.0 31.0 26.7 15.6 12.1	73.3 37.4 46.2 98.5 97.1 60.6 83.5 81.6 90.6 89.8 98.3 98.3 91.2 92.1 81.2 77.7 77.3 59.6 41.2 33.5
Note: For all items, the expectations scored significantly higher than the reported performance.

It can be seen that for half of the activities, fewer than 50% of patients reported "doctor performed during last consultation." For all items, the percentage of patients expecting to see those items in future was significantly higher than the percentage reporting that had been done during their consultation, suggesting that patients wanted doctors to improve on all items. There were four items that less than 50% of patients expected doctors to perform: Doctor introduces him/herself; Doctor uses the patient’s name in communication; Doctor asks if patient is satisfied with the consultation; Doctor thanks the patient.

Perception of doctors on doctor-patient communication

Doctors answered a questionnaire that was very similar to questions given to patients, with the addition of the two points that patients had found difficult in pre-testing. They were asked first whether they performed these activities routinely, then whether they thought they should in future. The doctors’ perceptions are presented in Table 2. The items are listed in the same order as they appeared in the questionnaire. For each activity, the percentage of doctors who reported "routinely perform" in the consultations and “expect to perform in the future” are reported in the same row.

Table 2

Doctors’ perception of performance of and need for communication activities
	Activities	Routinely perform		Expect to perform in the future
		N	(%)	N	(%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22	Doctor greets patient Doctor introduces him/herself Doctor uses the patient’s name in communication Doctor listens attentively while patient talks Doctor expresses sympathy with patient Doctor expresses a positive and encouraging attitude towards patient’s efforts in taking care of health Doctor check whether he/she understood exactly what patient said/would like to say Doctor checks if there is anything else that patient would like to share. Doctor informs the patient what he/she is going to do Doctor explains the needs for examination/test Doctor conducts examination in respectful manner Doctor asks patient about their knowledge and attitude concerning their disease before giving information Doctor informs patient about results of examination Doctor informs patient about diagnosis, hypothesis. Doctor informs patient about possible prognosis of the disease Doctor consider patient’s reaction to information provided Doctor discusses with patient about treatment methods with advantages and disadvantages of each method Doctor summarizes what he/she and patient agreed Doctor asks if the patient has any difficulty to follow the treatment course Doctor asks patient to repeat main issues in treatment course Doctor asks if patient is satisfied with the consultation Doctor thanks the patient	469 467 468 467 469 470 467 469 469 469 467 467 467 469 467 465 467 469 466 466 467 466	89.3 30.4 41.0 98.3 97.2 81.3 78.4 88.9 91.7 92.8 97.9 67.2 89.1 80.2 81.8 79.6 73.7 72.3 74.7 30.9 41.3 45.9	468 468 463 464 468 468 466 465 467 466 467 469 467 467 466 465 463 466 465 462 464 465	98.7 74.4 60.0 99.6* 99.6 99.6 98.7 98.9 97.9 98.5 99.6 95.5 95.3 92.9 92.5 97.6 92.7 94.6 97.4 77.3 85.1 86.0
* NO significant difference; all other differences between performed and expect to perform were significantly different.
** Items not included in the patients’ questionnaire

Table 2 shows that five of the 22 activities were not routinely performed; fewer than half of the doctors reported doing them routinely. For all but one item (number 4, ‘doctor listens attentively while patient talks’), the percentage of doctors expecting to perform them in the future was significantly higher than the percentage of those routinely performing them. That one item was reported as routinely done by nearly all doctors, and could hardly be improved. On all other items, doctors apparently thought they should improve their communication.

Time for each consultation

Doctors’ communication may be influenced by the time available per consultation. They were asked how much time they had for an average consultation and what would be ideal. While doctors said they would need an average of 17.6 (+/- 9.1) minutes per patient, they estimated that they only had 10.8 (+/-6.6) minutes.

Comparison of patients’ and doctors’ expectations

Patients expected improvement on all 20 items, while doctors expected to improve 21/22. However, patients’ expectations for all of the items were lower than doctors’ were. Table 3 shows the five items for which both patients and doctors had the lowest expectations.

Table 3

Five items for which both patients and doctors had low expectations
Activities	Patients expected %	Doctors expected %
Doctor thanks the patient	33.5	86
Doctor introduces him/herself	37.4	74.4
Doctor asks if patient is satisfied with the consultation	41.2	85.1
Doctor uses the patient’s name in communication	46.2	60
Doctor asks patient to repeat main issues in treatment course	59.6	77.3

Although the patients had low expectations on all four items, for one (‘Doctor asks patient to repeat main issues in treatment course’) it was above the 50% cutoff for importance. The other four items that most patients did not expect from doctors were still considered important by doctors, but were among the five rated lowest by them.

Factors potentially affecting patients’ perceptions

In order to check for potential confounding factors, additional data were collected from patients about their gender, age and employment. Responses from men and women were similar. Women reported higher frequencies of ’doctor performed’ than men, but the difference was significant only for the activity ’greets patient’. Significantly higher satisfaction scores were seen among respondents over 55 years of age. For employment, few differences were noted. Farmers were more often responded ’very satisfied, and industrial workers were more ‘unsatisfied’ for both the consultation and the doctor's communication. For ‘doctor greets patient’, retired persons reported the highest frequency while students reported the lowest. Housewives said that they felt that the doctor ’expresses sympathy with patient’ more than students.

The responses from patients exiting a provincial hospital were significantly higher than from a district facility for ’Doctor informs the patient what he/she is going to do’. For ‘Doctor expresses a positive and encouraging attitude towards patient’s efforts in taking care of health’, the results were reversed.

For patients’ expectations of future consultations, no significant differences were found among different groups related to gender, age, employment or level of facility.

Items related to patients’ satisfaction

Analysis of the association between the patients’ perception about the communication actions and their satisfaction with their consultation can clarify what is important to the patients. Logistic regression analysis showed a significant relationship between patients’ general satisfaction with the consultation in general, and with four of the items that were performed by the doctor (Table 4); the overall percentage was 95%, which suggests that this model is 95% correct.

Table 4

Four items of doctors’ communication significantly related to patients’ general satisfaction with the consultation
Communication activities performed by doctors strongly related to patients’ general satisfaction with the consultation	Sig.	OddsRatio
Doctor expresses sympathy with patient	.018*	3.837
Doctor informs the patient what he/she is going to do	.046*	2.745
Doctor conducts examination in respectful manner	.020*	3.692
Doctor asks patient to repeat main issues in treatment course	.020*	.283
*significantly related

In Table 4, the odds ratio (OR) for the item "Doctor expresses sympathy with patient" was 3.837 which means that patients who reported that their doctor performed this item were 3.837 times more likely to report being satisfied with their consultation than were patients who reported that the doctor did not perform it. Similarly, the OR were 2.745 and 3.692 times for the items "Doctor informs the patient what he/she is going to do" and "Doctor conducts examination in respectful manner" respectively. For the item, "Doctor asks patient to repeat main issues in treatment course," the OR of .283 means that this item was inversely related to overall satisfaction with the consultation.

With regard to the relation of the doctors’ performance and patients’ satisfaction with doctors’ communication, the results of logistic regression analysis are presented in Table 5, with an overall percentage of 95%, which suggests that this model is 95% correct.

Table 5

Items performed by doctors and significantly related to patients’ satisfaction with doctors’ *communication*
Items performed by doctors that were significantly related to patients’ satisfaction with doctors’ communication	Sig.	OddsRatio
Doctor introduces him/herself	.043*	.267
Doctor listens attentively while patient talks	.002*	5.582
Doctor explains the needs for examination/ test	.063	2.592
Doctor conducts examination in respectful manner	.029*	3.363
*significantly related

Table 5 shows that two items, “Doctor listens attentively while patient talks”, and “Doctor explains the needs for examination/ test” were significantly related to the patients’ satisfaction with doctors’ communication, while the item "Doctor introduces him/herself" was inversely related with their satisfaction.

Communication between doctor and patient is a key part of a clinical experience [29]. Discussions arise about potential differences in communication practice and expectations in different cultures [13]. We investigated the experience and expectations of patients exiting a clinical encounter and asked doctors about their own practice/skill in communication in six locations throughout Vietnam.

When first asked about their satisfaction with the consultation, nearly all patients were either satisfied or very satisfied with both the overall consultation and the doctor’s communication. Robbins et al. reported that patients are most satisfied with consultations when they talk about specific therapeutic interventions, are examined, and receive health education [30]. In our research, most patients reported being satisfied or very satisfied with both the overall consultation as well as with their doctor’s communication. However, when asked about specific communication activities, fewer than 50% of them reported the doctor’s having performed half of the activities on the list at most. This result suggests that Vietnamese patients were perhaps easily satisfied, and/or they had low expectations for the communication with the doctor.

The four items that less than half of the patients expected the doctor to perform were among the five items that doctors had lowest expectation of performing in future. These items may reflect the relatively little attention to the individual in Asian culture and the acceptance of hierarchy [18]. The patients may place themselves in a lower position than the doctors and limit their expectations. A similar result was found in Sri Lanka (a South Asian country) where less than 50% of patients expected doctors to introduce themselves, and to thank the patients [9]. But there were also some differences between the Sri Lankan results and the current study results. In Sri Lanka, patients also expected the doctor to decide the most appropriate treatment modality instead of discussing the available treatment options with them. They wanted precise instructions instead of explanations about the disease and the treatment [9]. This may reflect an even stronger hierarchy in Sri Lanka than in Vietnam. This is in support of the findings of Hofstede who reported that the power distance score was higher in Sri Lanka than in Vietnam [18].

Verlinde et al. [31] noted that social differences between doctors and patients could affect communication. Many still follow traditional social rules in which doctors dominate and patients remain passive [32]. Together with better communications training for doctors, increasing the patient's understanding of their partner role needs to be considered.

The variable ‘gender’ was found to affect only one item: women reported that their doctors ‘greet patients’ more than did men. Women may pay more attention to the greeting, or doctors may be more attentive to women. A few differences were found in satisfaction level and perception by different age groups, employment and with facility level, but expectations were similar for all groups at both facility levels.

A systematic review on what patients expect from communication with doctors [33] reported that qualitative studies identified the key importance of “fostering the relationship”, while quantitative studies did not. Most patients in our quantitative study gave low priority to four of those aspects, perhaps because of cultural differences or perhaps because the study methods did not allow for probing to obtain qualitative information.

In a similar hospital-based study among patients in Yemen, patients rated the doctors’ basic communication skills as good, while higher social skills like involving patients in decision-making were considered weak [26]. Among their patients, those above 45 were grouped as ‘older’ and were also more accepting of the doctors’ communication skills while the younger people were more demanding, similar to the results in our study. Unlike the patients in our study, in other study, gender played no significant role in their patients’ rating of doctors’ skills [26].

When we looked at overall patient satisfaction with the consultation or with the doctor’s communication, and its relation to specific items on the communication list, it was revealed that satisfaction was significantly related to items of attentiveness and respect, but two items were notably inversely related to satisfaction. Those were ‘Doctors introduces him/herself’ and ‘Doctor asks patient to repeat main issues in treatment course.” It seems that clinicians (and patients) in Vietnam focus on clinical information and examination. However, good medical practice suggests they should maximize therapeutic effects of communication to achieve results through increasing mutual understanding and trust, associated with increased self-efficacy, adherence, social support and improved health [34]. Both doctors and patients in our study recognized a need to strengthen other aspects of communication. However, doctors and patients also agreed that four items on the Western-inspired communication model had lower priority.

An Indonesian report [14] noted that patients wanted doctors to improve their communication skills, and patients’ expectations about doctors’ communication were very similar to those reported for Western societies. A U.S. review found that doctors and patients agreed on what constitutes competent communication with patients, but that it often did not happen as expected [34]. The doctors in our study felt confident in their communication skills, while recognizing that they could and should improve in most of the items. The expectations of the patients were less ambitious than those of the doctors.

All doctors said they needed more time for consultations. The high SD in their estimates of needed time may be related to specialty or personal speed; however, it could be resulted from the bias of the estimates since each doctor may have their own way to estimate the average time for each consultation. Moreover, the average perceived time needed was significantly higher than the time allocated. This indicates that there is a time pressure, which may force doctors to choose the priorities, during the consultation.

Implications for communication skill training in medical universities

What do these results mean for skills training in medical universities? Firstly, most activities on the list were considered appropriate for doctor-patient communication in Vietnam and were similarly appreciated by both doctors and patients. Also, both clearly recognised that improvements were needed. Claramita and Majoor [35] noted that although they could not detect differences in the actual practice of communication skills between doctors who had or had not been trained in a skills lab, those who had been trained were more aware of their deficiencies and the need to strengthen them.

Claramita et al. [12] considered the relevance of a Western communications approach in a Southeast Asian setting and found that not all items would be appropriate. They did find evidence of interest among patients in a more partnership-type approach. In our study, most patients gave lower priority to four items aimed at fostering the doctor-patient relation, as did most doctors. Claramita et al. [11] proposed a guideline for training communication skills in Southeast Asia that could help bridge the gap between the partnership model of the West and regional culture. The role of the social gradient described by Verlinde et al. [31] could explain the reticence on both sides to engage in a more partnership style communication.

Limitations

The study was done in outpatient clinics where most patient-doctor contacts would be the first meeting. For each case, we do not know whether all communication items were needed; e.g., not all patients may have needed discussion about treatment methods. Because the design was a cross-sectional survey based on questionnaires, misunderstandings about terminology could lead to incorrect choice of responses. For patients, trained interviewers recorded the results, but doctors completed the questionnaires on their own, making undetected misunderstandings possible. To explore more deeply expectations of doctors and patients, further studies including a range of clinical specialties and qualitative research methods are needed.

Very few patients or doctors declined to participate, but those few might have had more negative experiences. Patients and doctors received a small payment for their time, which might create bias as they might feel they had to give positive responses. The study investigated communication in a Southeast Asian culture, which could have increased the positive response because of the higher desire for harmony in these cultures.

Finally, it may seem a limitation that the doctors’ responses are based on self-reports, which might not reliably reflect their actual performance. The intention, however, was to identify their perceptions about what a good doctor should do; we did not try to evaluate their actual performance under current conditions.

Doctors and patients agreed that most of the activities on Western lists for training medical doctors were appropriate. Both groups had similar perceptions about what should be expected under better conditions and both gave lower priority to four skills that are considered important in a Western-style communication promoting relationship. Furthermore, the doctors had higher expectations than the patients. The implications for medical training in universities are to focus first on the key skills perceived as needing strengthening by both doctors and patients. It can be based on Western models with minor adaptations to the local context. Increasing patients’ understanding of their partner role needs to be considered. In the longer term, all of items should be trained in order to prepare for the future, if doctors for any reason have to cut off some items they would choose the lower priority items.

• Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research protocol was approved by the Scientific Committee of the Ho Chi Minh City University of Medicine and Pharmacy, covering both technical and ethical aspects. The Scientific Committee of the Ho Chi Minh City University of Medicine and Pharmacy approved the procedure for obtaining verbal consent from participants, as the participation

• Consent for publication:

Not applicable

• Availability of data and materials:

The datasets used during the current study are submitted as additional supporting files

• Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

• Funding

This research project was funded by the Dutch NPT project “Strengthening medical skills training at 8 medical faculties/universities in Vietnam.”

• Authors' contributions

TT designed and implemented the study, participated in data analyzing and drafted the manuscript. AS contributed to formulation of the study design and advised on the preparation of the manuscript. JD advised on the study questions and study design and contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. DD analyzed the data. PW advised on processing, selection and interpretation of research results and formulation of the paper, shared in editing the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

• Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the members of the eight faculties who participated in the project “Strengthening medical skills training at 8 medical faculty/universities in Vietnam” for implementing this research, and the city/provincial hospitals and district health centers for hosting data collection, and the doctors and patients who participated in the research.

We also thank University of Maastricht Medical skills training experts, and the communication experts from eight medical faculties/universities in Vietnam for sharing their expertise to develop the research tool.

We are grateful to the NPT project from the Netherlands, “Strengthening medical skills training at 8 medical faculty/universities in Vietnam” for funding this research as well as for supporting the skillslab system in Vietnam.

Matusitz J, Spear J. Effective doctor–patient communication: an updated examination. Social work in public health. 2014;29(3):252–66.
Kurtz S, Draper J, Silverman J. Teaching and Learning Communication Skills in Medicine. 3, editor: CRC Press,; 2017.
Belasen A, Belasen AT. Doctor-patient communication: a review and a rationale for using an assessment framework. Journal of Health Organization Management. 2018;32(7):891–907. doi:10.1108/JHOM-10-2017-0262.
Norhayati MN, Masseni AA, Azlina I. Patient satisfaction with doctor-patient interaction and its association with modifiable cardiovascular risk factors among moderately-high risk patients in primary healthcare. PeerJ. 2017;5:e2983-e. doi:10.7717/peerj.2983.
Wang Q. Doctor-patient communication and patient satisfaction: A cross-cultural comparative study between China and the U.S. Purdure. E-Pubs: Purdue University; 2010.
Laidlaw TS, MacLeod H, Kaufman DM, Langille DB, Sargeant J. Implementing a communication skills programme in medical school: needs assessment and programme change. Med Educ. 2002;36(2):115–24.
Aspegren K, Lonberg-Madsen P. Which basic communication skills in medicine are learnt spontaneously and which need to be taught and trained? Med Teach. 2005;27(6):539–43. doi:10.1080/01421590500136501.
Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(3):301–12. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010.
Mudiyanse R, Weerasinghe M, Piyasinghe GS,M, Jayasundara MK. J, M,H. Patient's Expectations during Doctor Patient Communication and Doctors Perception about Patient's Expectations in a Tertiary Care Unit in Sri Lanka. Archives of Medicine. 2015;7(6):12.
Moore M. What does patient-centred communication mean in Nepal? Med Educ. 2008;42(1):18–26. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02900.x.
Claramita M, Prabandair Y, van Dalen J, van der Vleuten C. Developing and validating a guideline on doctor-patient communication for Southeast Asian context. Southeast Asian Journal of Medical Education. 2010;4(2):23–30.
Claramita M, Nugraheni MD, van Dalen J, van der Vleuten C. Doctor-patient communication in Southeast Asia: a different culture? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013;18(1):15–31. doi:10.1007/s10459-012-9352-5.
Schouten BC, Meeuwesen L. Cultural differences in medical communication: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;64(1–3):21–34. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.11.014.
Claramita M, Susilo AP. Improving communication skills in the Southeast Asian health care context. Perspect Med Educ. 2014;3(6):474–9. doi:10.1007/s40037-014-0121-4.
Street RL Jr, Gordon HS, Ward MM, Krupat E, Kravitz RL. Patient participation in medical consultations: why some patients are more involved than others. Med Care. 2005:960–9.
Bensing J, Rimondini M, Visser A. What patients want. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90(3):287–90. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.01.005.
Hofstede G. Country Comparison - Hofstede Insights (2018). https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/. Accessed 28 April 2018.
Hofstede G. What about Vietnam?- Country Comparison - Hofstede Insights (2018). https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/vietnam/. Accessed 28 April 2018.
Claramita M, Utarini A, Soebono H, Van Dalen J, Van der Vleuten C. Doctor-patient communication in a Southeast Asian setting: the conflict between ideal and reality. Advances in health sciences education: theory practice. 2011;16(1):69–80. doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9242-7.
Nguyen D. Culture shock–a review of Vietnamese culture and its concepts of health and disease. The Western journal of medicine. 1985;142(3):409–12.
Ministry of Health, Decision on approval for document about competence standards for general practitioners, Ministry of Health, Vietnam. 2015, https://vanbanphapluat.co/decision-no-1854-qd-byt-2015-document-about-competence-standards-for-general-practitioners, Accessed 9 February 2018.
Ministry of Health, Regulations on communication in medical examination and treatment facilities, Ministry of Health, Vietnam. 2001, https://thukyluat.vn/vb/quyet-dinh-4031-2001-qd-byt-che-do-giao-tiep-trong-cac-co-so-kham-chua-benh-15cf6.html, Accessed 24 January 2018.
Kersnik J. An evaluation of patient satisfaction with family practice care in Slovenia. Int J Qual Health Care J Int Soc Qual Health Care ISQua. 2000;12(2):143–7. doi:10.1093/intqhc/12.2.143.
Sebo P, Herrmann FR, Bovier P, Haller DM. What are patients’ expectations about the organization of their primary care physicians’ practices? BMC Health Services Research. 2015;15(1):328. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0985-y.
Fan VS, Burman M, McDonell MB, Fihn SD. Continuity of care and other determinants of patient satisfaction with primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(3):226–33. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40135.x.
Abadel FT, Hattab AS. Patients' assessment of professionalism and communication skills of medical graduates. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(1):28. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-28.
Silverman J, Kurtz S, Draper J. Skills in Communicating with Patients: CRC Press 2013.
Van Thiel J, van Dalen j, Ram P. MAAS Global Manual 2000: Maastricht University Press 2003.
Deledda G, Moretti F, Rimondini M, Zimmermann C. How patients want their doctor to communicate. A literature review on primary care patients’ perspective. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90(3):297–306.
Robbins JA, Bertakis KD, Helms LJ, Azari R, Callahan EJ, Creten D. The influence of physician practice behaviors on patient satisfaction. Fam Med. 1993;25:17-.
Verlinde E, De Laender N, De Maesschalck S, Deveugele M, Willems S. The social gradient in doctor-patient communication. Int J Equity Health. 2012;11:12. doi:10.1186/1475-9276-11-12.
Managing the Power Dynamic Between Doctors and Patients
Esposito L. Managing the Power Dynamic Between Doctors and Patients (2014). https://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2014/05/13/managing-the-power-dynamic-between-doctors-and-patients. Accessed 28 April 2018.
Street RL Jr, Makoul G, Arora NK, Epstein RM. How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(3):295–301. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.015.
Cegala DJ, Gade C, Lenzmeier Broz S, McClure L. Physicians' and patients' perceptions of patients' communication competence in a primary care medical interview. Health Commun. 2004;16(3):289–304. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1603_2.
Claramita M, Majoor G. Comparison of communication skills in medical residents with and without undergraduate communication skills training as provided by the Faculty of Medicine of Gadjah Mada University. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2006;19(3):308–20. doi:10.1080/13576280600937887.

PDF

Journal Publication

published 14 Oct, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Health Services Research →

Submission checks completed at journal
07 May, 2020
Editor assigned by journal
06 May, 2020
Editor invited by journal
05 May, 2020

You are reading this latest preprint version

Nationwide survey of patients’ and doctors’ perceptions of what is needed in doctor - patient communication in a Southeast Asian context

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Study design

Study participants and data collection process

Materials

Doctors

Patients

Data analysis

Ethical considerations

Results

Patients’ perceptions of doctors’ communication

Perception of doctors on doctor-patient communication

Time for each consultation

Comparison of patients’ and doctors’ expectations

Factors potentially affecting patients’ perceptions

Items related to patients’ satisfaction

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

Declarations

• Ethics approval and consent to participate

• Consent for publication:

• Funding

• Authors' contributions

• Acknowledgements

References

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1