The relationship between social support, shared decision-making and patient’s trust in doctors: a cross-sectional survey of 2,197 inpatients using the Cologne Patient Questionnaire
- 869 Downloads
Empirical studies have confirmed that a trusting physician–patient interaction promotes patient satisfaction, adherence to treatment and improved health outcomes. The objective of this analysis was to investigate the relationship between social support, shared decision-making and inpatient’s trust in physicians in a hospital setting.
A written questionnaire was completed by 2,197 patients who were treated in the year 2000 in six hospitals in Germany. Logistic regression was performed with a dichotomized index for patient’s trust in physicians.
The logistic regression model identified significant relationships (p < 0.05) in terms of emotional support (standardized effect coefficient [sc], 3.65), informational support (sc, 1.70), shared decision-making (sc, 1.40), age (sc, 1.14), socioeconomic status (sc, 1.15) and gender (sc, 1.15). We found no significant relationship between ‘tendency to excuse’ and trust. The last regression model accounted for 49.1% of Nagelkerke’s R-square.
Insufficient physician communication skills can lead to extensive negative effects on the trust of patients in their physicians. Thus, it becomes clear that medical support requires not only biomedical, but also psychosocial skills.
KeywordsPhysician–patient interaction Trust Social support Shared decision-making Medical education
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
- Allison PD (2001) Missing data. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Arora NK, David HG (2009) Perceived helpfulness of physicians’ communication behavior and breast cancer patients’ level of trust over time. J Gen Intern Med 24:252–255Google Scholar
- Berrios-Rivera JP, Street RL Jr, Garcia Popa-Lisseanu MG, Kallen MA, Richardson MN, Janssen NM, Marcus DM, Reveille JD, Warner NB, Suarez-Almazor NE (2006) Trust in physicians and elements of the medical interaction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res 55:385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Graham JW, Cumsille PE, Elek-Fisk E (2003) Methods for handling missing data. In: Schinka JA, Velicer WF (eds) Research methods in psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 87–114Google Scholar
- House JS (1981) Work stress and social support. Addison-Wesley, Reading MAGoogle Scholar
- Icks A, Rosenbauer J, Strassburger K, Grabert M, Giani G, Holl RW (2007) Persistent social disparities in the risk of hospital admission of paediatric diabetic patients in Germany—prospective data from 1277 diabetic children and adolescents. Diabet Med 24:440–442Google Scholar
- Janssen C, Pfaff H (2005) Psycho-social environments. In: Kerr J, Weitkunat R, Morett M (eds) ABC of behavior change: a guide to successful disease prevention and health promotion. Elsevier, London, pp 153–165Google Scholar
- Meyers LS, Gamst G, Guarino AJ (2006) Applied multivariate research: design and interpretation. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Ommen O, Janssen C, Neugebauer E, Bouillon B, Rehm K, Rangger C, Erli HJ, Pfaff H (2008) Trust, social support and patient type—associations between patients perceived trust, supportive communication and patients preferences in regard to paternalism, clarification and participation of severely injured patients. Patient Educ Couns 73:196–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pfaff H, Freise D, Mager G, Schrappe M (2003) Der Kölner Patientenfragebogen (KPF): Entwicklung und Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Einbindung des Patienten als Kotherapeuten. Asgard-Verlag, Sankt AugustinGoogle Scholar
- Scheibler F, Janßen C, Pfaff H (2003) Shared decision making: ein Überblicksartikel über die internationale Forschungsliteratur. Soz Präventiv Med 48:11–23Google Scholar
- Statistical Yearbook 2008 for the Federal Republic of Germany (2008) WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
- Trachtenberg F, Dugan E, Hall MA (2005) How patients’ trust relates to their involvement in medical care. Fam Pract 54:344–352Google Scholar