Patient-doctor depth-of-relationship scale: Development and validation

49Citations
Citations of this article
106Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

PURPOSE Because patient-doctor continuity has been measured in its longitudinal rather than its personal dimension, evidence to show that seeing the same doctor leads to better patient care is weak. Existing relational measures of patient-doctor continuity are limited, so we developed a new patient self-completion instrument designed to specifically measure patient-doctor depth of relationship. METHODS Draft versions of the questionnaire were tested with patients in faceto- face interviews and 2 rounds of pilot testing. The final instrument was completed by patients attending routine appointments with their general practitioner, and some were sent a follow-up questionnaire. Scale structure, validity, and reliability were assessed. RESULTS Face validity of candidate items was confirmed in interviews with 11 patients. Data from the pilot rounds 1 (n = 375) and 2 (n = 154) were used to refine and shorten the questionnaire. The final instrument comprised a single scale of 8 items and had good internal reliability (Cronbach's α =.93). In the main study (N = 490), seeing the same doctor was associated with deep patient-doctor relationships, but the relationship appeared to be nonlinear (overall adjusted odds ratio = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8). Test-retest reliability in a sample of participants (n = 154) was good (intracluster correlation coefficient 0.87; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97). CONCLUSIONS The Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale is a novel, conceptually grounded questionnaire that is easy for patients to complete and is psychometrically robust. Future research will further establish its validity and answer whether patient-doctor depth of relationship is associated with improved patient care.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ridd, M. J., Lewis, G., Peters, T. J., & Salisbury, C. (2011). Patient-doctor depth-of-relationship scale: Development and validation. Annals of Family Medicine, 9(6), 538–545. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1322

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free