Patient-Provider Communication and Health Outcomes Among Individuals with Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Disease in the USA
- 158 Downloads
Patient-provider communication (PPC) is utilized as a value-based metric in pay-for-performance programs. We sought to evaluate the association of PPC with patient-reported health outcomes, as well as healthcare resource utilization among a nationally representative cohort of patients with hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) diagnoses.
Patients with HPB diseases were identified from the 2008–2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey cohort. A weighted PPC composite score was categorized using the responses from the CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) survey as optimal, average, or poor. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression.
Among 1951 adult-patients, representing 21.7 million HPB patients, reported PPC was optimal (33.4%), average (46.3%), or poor (15.3%). Patients who were older and patients with low income were more likely to report poor PPC (both p < 0.05). Statin use, a quality of care measure, was associated with optimal PPC (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.10–2.64; p = 0.01). In contrast, patients who reported poor PPC were more likely to have a poor physical (20.8%) or mental (8.8%) health component on their SF12 (both p < 0.05). Furthermore, patients with poor PPC were more likely to report poor mental status (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.60–5.52), as well as higher emergency department visits (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.25–3.05) and hospitalizations (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.02–3.55) (both p < 0.05). Reported PPC was not associated with differences in overall healthcare expenditures or out-of-pocket expenditures.
PPC was associated with a wide spectrum of patient-specific demographic and health utilization factors. Self-reported patient satisfaction with provider communication may be impacted by other considerations than simply the patient-provider interaction.
KeywordsPatient-provider communication HPB disease Health outcomes Hospital utilization Quality of care measures
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Handy CM, O’Dea D. Site-specific cancer series: pancreatic and hepatobiliary cancers. 2013:124.Google Scholar
- 7.Wright MT. Patient–Provider Communication. Encyclopedia of Aging and Public Health. 2008, pp 631–3.Google Scholar
- 8.Okunrintemi V, Spatz ES, Di Capua P, Salami JA, Valero-Elizondo J, Warraich H, Virani SS, Blaha MJ, Blankstein R, Butt AA, Borden WB. Patient–Provider Communication and Health Outcomes Among Individuals With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in the United States. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2017;10(4):e003635.Google Scholar
- 12.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: Survey Background. https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/about_meps/survey_back.jsp. Accessed February 2, 2017.
- 13.Lyles CR, Sarkar U, Ralston JD, Adler N, Schillinger D, Moffet HH, Huang ES, Karter AJ. Patient–provider communication and trust in relation to use of an online patient portal among diabetes patients: The Diabetes and Aging Study. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2013;20(6):1128–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.Williams MV, Davis T, Parker RM, Weiss BD. The role of health literacy in patient-physician communication. FAMILY MEDICINE-KANSAS CITY-. 2002;34(5):383–9.Google Scholar
- 19.Song L, Weaver MA, Chen RC, Bensen JT, Fontham E, Mohler JL, Mishel M, Godley PA, Sleath B. Associations between patient–provider communication and socio-cultural factors in prostate cancer patients: A cross-sectional evaluation of racial differences. Patient education and counseling. 2014;97(3):339–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar